All those psych and sociology majors help fund the science majors atleast.
Case in point. One semester I took 21 credits in subjects relating to the social sciences (Crim, Sociology, anthropology, psych). The amount of work that I had to put in was far less than the semester I just took Organic Chem and Calc 2, totaling 8 credits.
I have come away with the feeling that my professors in the social sciences were just not as intelligent as my math and science teachers. I remember in one particular case I read an article published in a criminological journal by one of my Crim professors. It was one of the poorest pieces of work I have ever read.
The writing was sloppy and kept repeating itself, and the methods and conclusions were piss poor. IMOHP a Phd in one of the hard sciences is MUCH MUCH more impressive than one in the social sciences.
Leaving those social science classes I couldn’t help but believe that I could have taught the entire course. Leaving a calc or physics class I couldn’t help but believe that I would ever learn the lesson we just went over!!!
The whole bias factor was another big scrupple I had with those social “science” classes. It seemed that alot of times the professors would insert their own world views into the subject matter and then expect the students to embrace them whole heartedly. That is what I liked about math or chem or physics. The answers were what they were. Some professor couldn’t throw their own subjective opinions into their grading.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
el0gic wrote:
Useless.
Hard sciences develop theory that actually let you make predictions about the real world.
Social sciences seem to either a) try and make up theory based on assumptions about very complex phenomena or b) use statistics to try and establish links between variables.
So, I don’t really see what social sciences achieve, if the predictions they make are based on statistics anyway. I think social academics are barking up the wrong tree when they try and make theory. They would be much better placed trying to find mathematical descriptions of processes based on massive statistical analysis. In this second case, there is no such thing as a social scientist, merely a statistician who analyses social phenomena.
The hard sciences had ascertained at one point that the world was flat.
[/quote]
And that’s still an approximation that’s used a lot today.
[quote]undeadlift wrote:
el0gic wrote:
Useless.
Hard sciences develop theory that actually let you make predictions about the real world.
So is economics useless?[/quote]
‘The Dismal Science’. It’s commonly said that no two economists ever agree on a conclusion.
I’d say it is useful in some applications, but that firms/individuals largely make money by data analysis, not following theory.
When white people go away to college, they tend to study what are knowns as the Arts. This includes actual Art, English, History, Classics, and Philosophy. These can of course be broken down further into Film, Womyn�??s Studies (yes the spelling is correct), Communications, Gender Studies, and so forth.
It is important to note that a high percentage of white people also get degrees in Political Science, which is pretty much like arts, and only seems to have the word �??science�?? in it to make white people feel better about themselves.
These degrees enable white people to spend four yeas of their lives reading books, writing papers and feeling great about themselves. It is a known fact that Arts students firmly believe that they are doing you/society a favor by not getting a job and reading Proust.
They use this to protest for reduced tuition, more money for the arts, and special reduced student rates on things like bus passes.
But what about the white people who study Science, Engineering or Business? Unless they become doctors, they essentially lose white person status (and can only be regained by working at a non-profit).
So why would white people spend all that time studying and working to get into college if they are just going to read books that they might have read in their free time? Because white people have it made.
They can take that degree and easily parlay it into a non profit job, an art gallery job, or work in publishing. If the pay is low, no problem, their parents will happily help out with rent until they magically start making six figures or non-magically turn 40.
White people can also take that degree and go to graduate school (future post) and eventually become a professor or adjunct professor where they will still require parental support.
If they are REALLY ambitious and need to make money, they can take that degree and go to Law School.
But the real reason white people need these degrees is so that they can sound smart at parties. Of course it trickles down to making connections, getting hired, knowing rich people, and so forth. But ultimately it all begins by saying �??reading Henry James was the most rewarding part of undergrad.�??
Using this to your advantage can be very difficult as attempts to talk about the books they skimmed while hungover can expose you. It is best to say that you were a first generation college student and your parents demanded that you study math, chemistry, economics or computer science. You had to read Joyce on your own.
~stuff white people like.com
[quote]el0gic wrote:
‘The Dismal Science’. It’s commonly said that no two economists ever agree on a conclusion.
I’d say it is useful in some applications, but that firms/individuals largely make money by data analysis, not following theory.[/quote]
You didn’t really say anything here at all. All you said is that most of the business world and people in general is/are ignorant of economic theory. That’s all. No one is going to disagree with you there, but how in the world does that marginalize the usefulness of the field?
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
el0gic wrote:
Useless.
Hard sciences develop theory that actually let you make predictions about the real world.
Social sciences seem to either a) try and make up theory based on assumptions about very complex phenomena or b) use statistics to try and establish links between variables.
So, I don’t really see what social sciences achieve, if the predictions they make are based on statistics anyway. I think social academics are barking up the wrong tree when they try and make theory. They would be much better placed trying to find mathematical descriptions of processes based on massive statistical analysis. In this second case, there is no such thing as a social scientist, merely a statistician who analyses social phenomena.
The hard sciences had ascertained at one point that the world was flat.
[/quote]
that is total bullshit. Ancient greeks even used the angle of the sun based on the length of shadows at different places at the same time to figure out the diameter of the earth to within a few thousand miles(aristotle or archimedes but im not sure) . The concept that the earth is flat was maintained by the ignorant masses, and was not accepted by the educated portion of society.
Edit: I wouldnt really even call anything “hard science” before around 1600 (at least in Europe, dont know about other places). That is a conservative date as they weren’t very scientific before that.
[quote]rander wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
el0gic wrote:
Useless.
Hard sciences develop theory that actually let you make predictions about the real world.
Social sciences seem to either a) try and make up theory based on assumptions about very complex phenomena or b) use statistics to try and establish links between variables.
So, I don’t really see what social sciences achieve, if the predictions they make are based on statistics anyway. I think social academics are barking up the wrong tree when they try and make theory. They would be much better placed trying to find mathematical descriptions of processes based on massive statistical analysis. In this second case, there is no such thing as a social scientist, merely a statistician who analyses social phenomena.
The hard sciences had ascertained at one point that the world was flat.
that is total bullshit. Ancient greeks even used the angle of the sun based on the length of shadows at different places at the same time to figure out the diameter of the earth to within a few thousand miles(aristotle or archimedes but im not sure) . The concept that the earth is flat was maintained by the ignorant masses, and was not accepted by the educated portion of society.
Edit: I wouldnt really even call anything “hard science” before around 1600 (at least in Europe, dont know about other places). That is a conservative date as they weren’t very scientific before that. [/quote]
it isn’t bullshit you twit.
At one point it was also believed everything revolved around the earth.
hey and how large was the educated part of WHAT SOCIETY???
The world, even the “learned world” consisted of more than just Greece.
sucks doesn’t it?
[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
el0gic wrote:
‘The Dismal Science’. It’s commonly said that no two economists ever agree on a conclusion.
I’d say it is useful in some applications, but that firms/individuals largely make money by data analysis, not following theory.
You didn’t really say anything here at all. All you said is that most of the business world and people in general is/are ignorant of economic theory. That’s all. No one is going to disagree with you there, but how in the world does that marginalize the usefulness of the field?
[/quote]
What I’m saying is that economics is sometimes useful, sometimes not, but not useless perse. Is something useful if noone uses it?
Yes. Yes it is. Use and usefulness are separate things. If I don’t use a wrench it doesn’t make it a useless tool.
Name me something that economics is not useful in. I contend that it is useful in anything and everything.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
it isn’t bullshit you twit.
At one point it was also believed everything revolved around the earth.
hey and how large was the educated part of WHAT SOCIETY???
The world, even the “learned world” consisted of more than just Greece.
sucks doesn’t it?
[/quote]
It’s posts like this that make me want to teach you the ins and outs of Hard Science over and over again.
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
The whole bias factor was another big scrupple I had with those social “science” classes. It seemed that alot of times the professors would insert their own world views into the subject matter and then expect the students to embrace them whole heartedly. That is what I liked about math or chem or physics. The answers were what they were. Some professor couldn’t throw their own subjective opinions into their grading.[/quote]
What the fuck is a scrupple? LOL. My simple social science mind can’t comprehend such big words.
[response to another post]: To anyone who thinks economics is not used in the business world ought to take a look around Wall St. and elsewhere in the financial sector. There are one or two millionaires running around with social science degrees. And I’m not quite certain, but I think maybe MBAs might be faring quite well against engineers and scientists in the salary game. So, while the social sciences may be bullshit, at least they are profitable.
DB
[quote]dollarbill
What the fuck is a scrupple? LOL. My simple social science mind can’t comprehend such big words.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure, given the context, he was referring to the first entry there.
I have only taken an “intro to psych” and “intro to soc” course, but I found both to be pretty worthless. Some certain areas of those fields definitely interest me, but the basic that everyone is forced to take in high school or college and pretty pointless.
I won’t go as far as to say they are totally worthless, just that they are really really easy. After you learn to read book and write papers, you know how to read books and write papers. Sprinkle in some basic statistics and you too can have a social science degree.
[quote]sen say wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
it isn’t bullshit you twit.
At one point it was also believed everything revolved around the earth.
hey and how large was the educated part of WHAT SOCIETY???
The world, even the “learned world” consisted of more than just Greece.
sucks doesn’t it?
It’s posts like this that make me want to teach you the ins and outs of Hard Science over and over again.[/quote]
I’ll wear the plaid skirt you bring the yard stick.
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
Charlemagne wrote:
The whole bias factor was another big scrupple I had with those social “science” classes. It seemed that alot of times the professors would insert their own world views into the subject matter and then expect the students to embrace them whole heartedly. That is what I liked about math or chem or physics. The answers were what they were. Some professor couldn’t throw their own subjective opinions into their grading.
What the fuck is a scrupple? LOL. My simple social science mind can’t comprehend such big words.
[response to another post]: To anyone who thinks economics is not used in the business world ought to take a look around Wall St. and elsewhere in the financial sector. There are one or two millionaires running around with social science degrees. And I’m not quite certain, but I think maybe MBAs might be faring quite well against engineers and scientists in the salary game. So, while the social sciences may be bullshit, at least they are profitable.
DB[/quote]
I’m stepping pretty far out of my own experience here, but I would hazard that success in business is more a function of experience than theory.
I’m also not quite certain, but I think that people with engineering/science training might be faring quite well against MBAs in the salary game (eg. finance). Whilst the physical sciences may be useful, at least they are profitable. Oh…
[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Yes. Yes it is. Use and usefulness are separate things. If I don’t use a wrench it doesn’t make it a useless tool.
Name me something that economics is not useful in. I contend that it is useful in anything and everything.[/quote]
Describing star formation.
A wrench would be pretty useless if we had no bolts.
[quote]el0gic wrote:
FlavaDave wrote:
Yes. Yes it is. Use and usefulness are separate things. If I don’t use a wrench it doesn’t make it a useless tool.
Name me something that economics is not useful in. I contend that it is useful in anything and everything.
Describing star formation.
A wrench would be pretty useless if we had no bolts.
[/quote]
unless I wanted to break a window
and I also mean that in response to FlavaDave.
sometimes things end up being useful outside of their scope of intended usage.
[quote]el0gic wrote:
I’m also not quite certain, but I think that people with engineering/science training might be faring quite well against MBAs in the salary game (eg. finance). Whilst the physical sciences may be useful, at least they are profitable. Oh… [/quote]
Not a chance. There’s just no comparison.