Question by Twilight: Do you think social science is simpler or more complex than physical science?
I have noticed a tendency amongst for those with a scientific background to disparage social science, and especially academic feminism as a kind of poor intellectual relation to the “hard” sciences of physics, chemistry, biology and their hybrids.
Is that at all justified?
Physics, the foundation science develops its methods from just two founding theories: quantum physics and general relativity. These theories solve no – as in literally zero problems in real life with utter certainty. They provide extremely accurate abstractions which model simple problems, and degenerate in their predictive value in complex systems.
The daughter sciences of chemistry and biology look to patterns established from the principles of physics to develop models which find merit if they correctly describe observed reality. They rarely attempt to derive their models from first principles, instead looking to identify salient and useful patterns.
By contrast the social sciences examine phenomenally complex patterns, human behavior from both a social and biological viewpoint, and from that, deduce patterns to explain beheavior. Furthermore they examine ethical and moral standpoints with a view to constructing, understanding and modeling society from economic, social and psychological reference points.
Do you think social science is simpler or more complex than physical science?
Best answer:
Answer by snufkins return
Science doesnt explain everything as it is often black and white. Thats why you need to have social sciences
Add your own answer in the comments!
“Social science” is mostly pseudo science.
obviously social science has more variables than pure physics because the mind is so complex and has the capacity to think abstractly,let alone find humor,pathos and other such emotions which pure science has no place for.It is a science in one sense but is more related to the art stream with its concession for artistic and creative thinking
It’s more comlex. It’s like a mixture of physical sciences, except we can’t understand enough of the concepts and bring them all together to make what we know as social science (we just don’t have a good enough understanding of the human brain etc).
So we have to use what experience and logic we have and take. Unfortunatley this means that alot of social scientists can be ignorant, annoying and bias and can twist things to suit their own agendas.
In other words I don’t have alot of faith in them, because their theories are only as good as their theory maker.
As for phenomenally complex patterns, if you are implying that physics does not do this, then I emplore you to take it up as a proffesion. The difference is that Physics allows little to no leeway in what existing principles can be used to create new ones.
Social sciences are far more complex than the hard sciences but therein lies the rub. Hard sciences use quantitative methodology, sound controls and use test tubes to provide data. The pure natural sciences use existing knowledge to try and answer relatively simple questions which have profound implications. It’s difficult to question solid hard research when it’s based on strong methodology and subjected to extensive review. Those in the hard sciences are deferential to legit critique and are quick to admit when they don’t know answers to questions or simply don’t have the tools to attempt to answer them.
Social sciences, historically, have attempted to use similar scientific method to answer very complex questions. The problem that was always encountered was that we simply can’t place human behavior into test tubes or petri dishes. We can’t reproduce things very well when we analyze social issues, and the issue of methodology is a terribly difficult factor to overcome. The vast majority of data gathered is based on self-report (which is a weak methodology). Even when researchers try to apply some rigour with respect to studying matters of human sexuality, the problem of self-report leads to unreliable statistics. Research with respect to human masturbatory behaviour based on self-report varies in the literature from 10% to 45% amongst females (in large trials). These numbers are very easy to critique and not many people buy into this just based on common sense.
In short, social sciences are far more complex but we simply don’t have the tools to tackle such complex matters with rigour so the results and conclusions of such studies create more confusion than anything else in too many cases. Economics doesn’t try to overreach its grasp, but other social sciences do, and for this reason although the pursuit of truth is noble, social sciences tend to extend their reach beyond their grasp.
Everyone is different, so no Social Theory can ever explain Social Phenomena. Since no two people are ever the same (not yet, at least), Social Science may be considered more difficult. However, the computations required to formulate answers in Social Sciences require mere observations.
On the contrary, Natural/Physical Sciences require actual thinking and abstract/mathematical computations to be performed, in order for any answer or result to come out. In that sense, the Natural/Physical Sciences may be considered more difficult. Also, once something is discovered in a Natural/Physical Science, it is confirmed and almost always remains the same. If we can determine how the Human brain/mind works, we can determine how and why they act the way they do.
Ultimately, Social Sciences, in my opinion, boil down to Natural/Physical Sciences because people only do what they do due to their brain and/or bodily/physical functions, which are caused by the functioning of these Natural/Physical Sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, etc.). If there existed no Chemical Reactions in the Human Body, then the Human body would not be able to choose and/or decide its way of functioning (basic bodily functions, motor movements, social interaction, etc.).
That is how I see it and I actually believe that it should be this way because Social Sciences have never done anything for this world. No theory has worked and I doubt any ever will. Natural/Physical Sciences have been advancing and figuring things out since the beginning of time.
I hope this helps!
Chemistry, biology, physics etc. always bored me. This is why I probably day dreamed in those classes. Social sciences aren’t just black and white, 2+2=4 type stuff, so they always have been and always will be more complex.
2+2 won’t resolve the Middle Eastern conflicts (for instance). Some dude who understands those people will. I hope I live to see that.