I want to test something.. What do you guys think about this ?
It works in natural sciences too, you can't disconnect the scientific process from the researcher. Simply because the history and biases of said researcher will eventually influence the process of research. Like I said, in hard science, the result will hardly be biased, what can be on the other hand is the process leading to those results.
Progress means progress. YOU are adding the word "social" and "political". The only thing I said is that science is an action toward more progress (more discoveries, less darkness in the minds etc.). This is therefore a moral action in the first place. And moral actions in a divided society can become political. (political meaning "clash of values"). Which means that the act of supporting social and doing science can also be a political act.
In fact, most scientific working on social sciences have no choice but to be politicized, simply because they are facing the same thing that happens in this thread: The denial of the legitimacy of their scientific discipline.
Why do you think I'm so fixated on social sciences and especially why am I so fixated on sociology ?
Because I love those disciplines more than the others ? No. I like cosmology more. (even tho I can't understand 90% of it)
Because this is a the most political discipline ? No. I think history is far more political as a social science.
Because its easy to understand ? No. Its sometimes quite hard to understand concepts in sociology.
The reason why I'm so fixated on sociology is because I noticed that the legitimization of this specific scientific discipline is THE CORE POINT OF CONTENTION between the two sides of the political spectrum. EVEN if people in those sides don't realize it.
The discourse around the legitimization of sociology (even when its not specified) is what I would call the center of the political spectrum.
A - The legitimization of sociology is what I could call a leftist vector
B - The delegitimization of sociology is what I could call a rightist vector
Depending if someone tends to do either A or B and the degree of it, we can say if said person has more chances to lean toward leftist ideologies or toward conservatist/far right ideologies and how fast they are moving toward them.
In short, I use people's point of views on sociology as a way to know how much work I have to do to protect those people from potential far right and toxic ideologies.
I don't have a lot of hope about that process but I know that the inception of ideas can have quite a power.
Again, you are looking at the conclusions when in reality conclusion are just ONE PART of the scientific process (already explained that). What I'm talking in not only biases in conclusions, but in the entire scientific process.
Sigh...
Again, I'm not talking only about conclusions but the entierity of science as a process. In hard science it will be indeed difficult to find biased results as conclusions will most likely be mathematical but that's not the case in social sciences where researches are contextual and therefore not universal.
Advice for you mate: More reading, less talking. You are missing the majority of my argumentation.
No, science was. The point was : Science can be biased.
Conclusion in some discipline can be influenced by biases but that's not the point I'm making. I'm talking about science in general.
No. The reason why people don't value social sciences is because social sciences can create result that contradict big political values about the world. This discipline is therefore something that is very hard to accept as scientifically legitimate for some people.
Biases are part of the scientific process so they are not a problem for scientist (if we take care of them of course)
Actually teachers can appear overnight. The only problem is that those teachers won't be as reliable as educated teachers. But if there is no other choices things can be arranged and temporary mesures can be taken while waiting for real teachers to arrive.
But of course, we also need to be a lot smarter about our educations policies in those nations and form teachers right now so we can be ready. In the meantime, this would be an extrem solution. In reality, we can tank the arrival of chidren from immigration quite easily. Education is not the prime problem. The distribution of ressources is.
It works in natural sciences too, you can't disconnect the scientific process from the researcher. Simply because the history and biases of said researcher will eventually influence the process of research. Like I said, in hard science, the result will hardly be biased, what can be on the other hand is the process leading to those results.
Progress means progress. YOU are adding the word "social" and "political". The only thing I said is that science is an action toward more progress (more discoveries, less darkness in the minds etc.). This is therefore a moral action in the first place. And moral actions in a divided society can become political. (political meaning "clash of values"). Which means that the act of supporting social and doing science can also be a political act.
In fact, most scientific working on social sciences have no choice but to be politicized, simply because they are facing the same thing that happens in this thread: The denial of the legitimacy of their scientific discipline.
Why do you think I'm so fixated on social sciences and especially why am I so fixated on sociology ?
Because I love those disciplines more than the others ? No. I like cosmology more. (even tho I can't understand 90% of it)
Because this is a the most political discipline ? No. I think history is far more political as a social science.
Because its easy to understand ? No. Its sometimes quite hard to understand concepts in sociology.
The reason why I'm so fixated on sociology is because I noticed that the legitimization of this specific scientific discipline is THE CORE POINT OF CONTENTION between the two sides of the political spectrum. EVEN if people in those sides don't realize it.
The discourse around the legitimization of sociology (even when its not specified) is what I would call the center of the political spectrum.
A - The legitimization of sociology is what I could call a leftist vector
B - The delegitimization of sociology is what I could call a rightist vector
Depending if someone tends to do either A or B and the degree of it, we can say if said person has more chances to lean toward leftist ideologies or toward conservatist/far right ideologies and how fast they are moving toward them.
In short, I use people's point of views on sociology as a way to know how much work I have to do to protect those people from potential far right and toxic ideologies.
I don't have a lot of hope about that process but I know that the inception of ideas can have quite a power.
Again, you are looking at the conclusions when in reality conclusion are just ONE PART of the scientific process (already explained that). What I'm talking in not only biases in conclusions, but in the entire scientific process.
Sigh...
Again, I'm not talking only about conclusions but the entierity of science as a process. In hard science it will be indeed difficult to find biased results as conclusions will most likely be mathematical but that's not the case in social sciences where researches are contextual and therefore not universal.
Advice for you mate: More reading, less talking. You are missing the majority of my argumentation.
No, science was. The point was : Science can be biased.
Conclusion in some discipline can be influenced by biases but that's not the point I'm making. I'm talking about science in general.
No. The reason why people don't value social sciences is because social sciences can create result that contradict big political values about the world. This discipline is therefore something that is very hard to accept as scientifically legitimate for some people.
Biases are part of the scientific process so they are not a problem for scientist (if we take care of them of course)
Actually teachers can appear overnight. The only problem is that those teachers won't be as reliable as educated teachers. But if there is no other choices things can be arranged and temporary mesures can be taken while waiting for real teachers to arrive.
But of course, we also need to be a lot smarter about our educations policies in those nations and form teachers right now so we can be ready. In the meantime, this would be an extrem solution. In reality, we can tank the arrival of chidren from immigration quite easily. Education is not the prime problem. The distribution of ressources is.
Last edited:
