Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Having various historic sources and comparing them is not science. It's just reading what you have available. Forming an actual theory/prediction and testing it isn't possible for history. A theory is a well-established, tested explanation that provides a unified description of some aspect of the natural world.
Again, social sciences do not fonction in the same way as natural sciences, the process is not necessaraly the same.
The point is that all are pushing for an unbiased research of the unknown through scientific process. And yes History does that too. That's what science is. You will not manage to push it out of the scientific field I'm sorry
The point is that all are pushing for an unbiased research of the unknown through scientific process. And yes History does that too. That's what science is. You will not manage to push it out of the scientific field I'm sorry
Again, social sciences do not fonction in the same way as natural sciences, the process is not necessaraly the same.
The point is that all are pushing for an unbiased research of the unknown through scientific process. And yes History does that too. That's what science is. You will not manage to push it out of the scientific field I'm sorry
The point is that all are pushing for an unbiased research of the unknown through scientific process. And yes History does that too. That's what science is. You will not manage to push it out of the scientific field I'm sorry
No need to push it out since it's not considered science
Historian are scientist if we look at the prime definition of science.
I'm advocating for social sciences as a whole rather than just history. I could point you out to some sociologist or anthropologist but I've very little knowledge in history so that will be hard.
The point is that social science ARE a discipline of science and history is part of that. The fact that social sciences uses - sometimes - different method doesn't change the fact that they are aiming at a systematical and unbiased research of the reality (of the past in the case of history) through scientifics process or experimental methods. Which is what sciences are.
Now, you want to affirm that history is not a science, like I said, go talk with an historian (or rather a few because you will most likely have different opinion on the subject).
I don't know enough about their founding, but yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. After all social science have a tendancy to question big hegemonic myths that are the basis for toxic systems such as capitalism.
Again, asking a liberal if they are pro-science will result in an affirmative answer.. but the moment we start to question the value of the notion of "meritocracy", they will start to panic, even if that's something clearly discussed in sociology.
Again, asking a liberal if they are pro-science will result in an affirmative answer.. but the moment we start to question the value of the notion of "meritocracy", they will start to panic, even if that's something clearly discussed in sociology.
I think we can all agree that Muay Thai > whatever magic judo shit Jurota uses @Uncle Van
