Michigan is as far from being the greatest state as it is far from washington.
I know I'm too new to say this (and the thread hasn't really gone six pages under yet), but this should seriously be considered for archiving.
Originally made by LM:
~ I have said nothing because there is nothing I can say that would describe how I feel as perfectly as you deserve it. -- Kyle Schmidt ~
~Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute. -- Josh Billings ~
It deals with abstract theories and conjectures that they try to prove, (cause effect ect.) thus a science.
yes what was odd was your conflating science with people not understanding theories or how theories are a waste of time
w/e it was a weird post!!!
No, I was saying people in the sociology field talk as if many of the their concepts, theories, are facts that just CAN'T BE DENIED AS TRUE, rather than theories. My opinion is that sociology is more of a science than anything, because of the use of theories, and thus is the reason why I most likely don't like the subject at large.
in essence you simply dont like science because it doesnt deal in abstract
i mean that is truly the best thing about science; in general there is no room for conjecture or philosophy. you deal with cold, hard facts.
the results arent abstract, the concepts and reasoning are
Not true, science guesses a lot and tries to prove it. Sometimes it can be measured, sometimes it can't be. And not all facts are finite, to think otherwise is naive. As I said, sociology is mostly based on conjectural abstracts of philosophical concepts on identity that is taken as truth rather than theories. Like the philosophy of identity, sociology's explanations on ones image as a person or as a people and the causes and effects of things or systems on that image are not "provable." Why? Because identity is also not a finite fact and its definition and meaning are subjective. So, like science, this subject is built on theories that, in this case (and in some cases in science as well) can't really be proven.
i dont know too much about sociology but youre mistaken when you say that there are facets of science which are unprovable. if its unprovable, either by mathematics or experiment, then it simply isnt science.
...i think you have the wrong idea of what science is.
I'm not saying science is not factual. I am just saying that one can't really prove everything for various reasons.
And perhaps I do have a warped view of science, but I think I have the right to ask a question like that in regards to a subject that supposedly can prove things of this nature in measurable finite facts.
no it cannot, and no one expects it of science to provide an exact number to everything. as far as measurement is concerned science has always been about estimation, in exactly the same way math approximates. pi isnt equal to 3.14 or 22/7; that is an approximation of its true value and for practical purposes that is all that matters. an astronomer would laugh at you if you tried to argue that an absence of an exact number for the number of stars in the sky (which itself is a vague question; do you mean a specific portion of the sky, the entire night-time sky as collectively viewed on earth, the number of stars in the galaxy or the universe?) proves that science is an inaccurate... science.
Again Justin, I just said that I don't think that some of science is factual. I find it hard to beleive that ALL science is factual. I'm a vain man, but am not very confident in saying that scientists that say all their facts are right is just so.