undefined | Better HN

0 pointsberntb9y ago0 comments

Economy, palaeontology, archaeology, history and astrophysics can use computer models, look for data in the nature etc. Those can disqualify hypotheses. But you can't use the normal scientific method.

I asked for references to disqualify economics (which aren't from obvious idealogical sources) -- none are presented. That tells me all I need to know.

I don't need the epistemology of Popper or the more modern philosophers of science for my argument -- there is a difference between experimental sciences and the rest. The point is: To disqualify one of these sciences because it isn't hard, you need to explain why don't also disqualify the rest of them.

If arguing about Popper and the scientific method is really your interest and not trolling, go ask an expert instead of asking me for what you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

coldtea9y ago· 1 in thread

>To disqualify one of these sciences because it isn't hard, you need to explain why don't also disqualify the rest of them.

All of them should be disqualified as well, with the exception of astrophysics which IS a hard science. Who said it isn't? Just because you can't directly observe from nearby a remote star to falsify your hypothesis etc doesn't mean you can't look at its energy emissions, radiation shifts due to speed, gravity effects to nearby bodies from its mass and volume etc. And a lot of astrophysics stuff related to composition of matter, nuclear reactions in a star, etc. are just plain physics. Not to mention when it cames to planets in the solar system, astrophysics very much can go (send probes etc) and gather empirical evidence directly.

History is no more "scientific" than economics -- both are ideological battlefields, where each thing is seen through the prism of the current preferences in each practitioner's era and circles.

Regarding palaeontology and archaeology both are full of BS too, but in the spectrum of hard vs soft sciences are closer to hard sciences than economics or history are, mostly the parts dealing with description and taxonomy of findings rather than their wild theorizing.

berntbOP9y ago

Hmm, fusion and particle physics might be too well known and _relatively_ simple that energy output and spectra can say what happens? You might be correct regarding astrophysics, especially since they do have many billions of examples to study.

Regarding your judgements on the rest of the fields, I'd really see better support for your claims. They will all look different with time, that is what research is, but dismissals of thousands of really smart people's work just need better motivation.

Some people just don't have much of an ideological connection to religion, sports or politics. At a minimum, I doubt that the departments in a majority of the world's economy departments have the same agenda. :-)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse