Social Sciences have a qualitative aspect and a quantitative aspect. Due to subject matter they can not be approached in the same exact way as the physical sciences. They limit their use when they try to mimic they physical sciences and this has been a hindrance to their progression and usefulness. We are in a state of economic crisis, war, crime, family dysfunction, mental and psychological dysfunction - These problems that face us are in the realm of social sciences.
I can agree it's ridiculous for sociologists to try and import maths as a means to try and cover it in a scientific gloss but this song is pathetic. You can hear the smugness in his voice when he says "science" in relation to sociology at the end. The biggest issue sociology has had is in accepting the definition of science found within the natural sciences and importing their legacy of empiricism and positivism into it's own areas of study. Highly recommend Bhaskar for an alternative view.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Your false sense of superiority is rather banal. All that's different between the natural and social sciences is the object of study and the need to use a method of study appropriate to that object.. Maths and statistical modelling are limited approaches to understanding society but to move from rightly criticising the (VERY) few of those who try to use them in sociology to a general critique of sociology is sheer ignorance of the what it is and does.
Keep living in dogmatic delusion, leave critical thinking to scientists. Social "sciences" don't use the scientific method and are heavily influenced by ideological trends and political correctness, therefore they aren't sciences at all. You can shout "I am scientist too!" as much as you want, it won't make you one. Sociobiology is the only valuable sociological theory, and it was universally hated by most sociologists for being "too scientific". Science is hard, let's be sociologists!
I love how you assert I am dogmatic when you are the one spouting about THE scientific method - something not even used universally across the natural sciences. If you mean that sociology regularly exposes exploitation as ideology and political correctness all it is showing is your inability to handle science. Science is indeed hard - hence we need to avoid the easy option of trying to apply a positivist model onto something that cannot be understood in such a reductive way.
So you're calling scientific method dogmatic? Hahaha oh wow. See, that's why you're not a scientist. Oh, and scientific method is used universally across ALL sciences. It's hilarious how you're still stuck in postmodernism. Social "sciences" will be utterly obliterated with the growth of neurosciences - but sociologists shouldn't worry about losing their jobs, they work at McDonalds anyway.
Science deals with facts, sociology deals with opinions and half-assed unverifiable "theories".
You're only showing your lack of attention there. I did not say scientific method was wrong - I was saying talk of THE scientific method was. Meteorology for example due to the nature of the object of study cannot proceed along the lines of closed experiments. I think scientific method is hugely important and I would never class myself as postmodernist. Unverifiable? Mate, I'm currently half way through three years of field work I deal plenty with empirical work.
So tell me, what verifiable theory of society did you manage to create. Oh wait, none. Just like all the sociologists before you. What about Talcott Parsons? He's considered a classic, and his "theories" are just a bunch of hoey, even sociologists I know admit that. Only in social "sciences" you can pass meaningless babbling as a theory, can you imagine something like that in real science? Not really, because real science is based on facts, not opinions.
Parsons? Really - do you know how few sociologists would claim to subscribe to Parsons? Your same question could be put to physics where was it not within the last century that Newton was replaced by Einstein? Theories are replaced as understandings improve. I'd agree there is a lot of babbling as theory by those who don't do empirical work. You're mistaking such people though as representing sociology as a whole; all you're displaying is your ignorance of the field.
Again neuroscience - not only can't it fully explain consciousness neither can it explain society - it's like using physics to explain human biology! Honestly with all these unverified opinions and half-arsed understandings of scientific procedure I doubt whether you've ever done any scientific work yourself?
You fail at reading and at understanding the world around you, I see. Neuroscience is still undeveloped, it can't explain consciousness nor society now, but it will be able to do so in time. Sociology will never explain society, because it lacks the tools to explore human brain - it's just obsolete, deal with it. You can't research quantum physics with stone-age technology, if you get my analogy.
Well, you for sure haven't done any scientific work, you're not a scientist after all.
Can you use physics solely to explain the workings of my heart or even use quantum physics to explain neurological activity in the brain? No, and the suggestion of it is ludicrous. Sure further understandings of the working of the brain will have obvious implications for understanding sociological phenomena but such phenomena can't be reduced to neurological activity. Are you so stupid to claim to explain capitalist market economies by the firing of neurons?
"Are you so stupid to claim to explain capitalist market economies by the firing of neurons?"
Are you so stupid to use such obvious strawmans? Yep, it seems you are.
Honestly, are you comparing changes of bullshit sociological theories to what happened in physics? Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Newtonian physics wasn't overthrown nor proven wrong, it is still widely used, so your analogy is wrong.
I can highly recommend Andrew Sayer - Method in Social Science if you want to actually learn about scientific method within social science rather than spouting nonsense about postmodernism - something rejected by the majority of those doing sociology. Brilliantly explains why positivism gives a false account of not just social but also natural science as well as setting out implications for social science from taking a critical realist position and the need to do empirical work.
Also that humans are a product of evolution and that process of evolution has had an impact upon the way we act that sociobiology contends I have absolutely no problem with. It's got a lot of interesting things to say but it tends towards over exaggerating its finding - it's its lack of being scientific that is the problem! The tendency to reduce social interaction only to biology though is the same as trying to explain the functioning of the body using only physics.
Every scientist likes to talk smack about overlapping sciences. Biologists vs. physicists, physicists vs. chemists, geneticists vs. botanists. These conflicts are real, talk to your professors. If an astronomy professor says he wrote his doctorate on string theory, feel free to make fun of him. But he has every right to say "pipe down, psychologist." Need to switch a lab in the chem dept? Happy to accommodate you. Request the same from the bio dept. and you'd think you asked for their sandwich.
Also, enjolraslechimiste, in science there are constantly beign made claims about what the right thing to follow should be, because while one experiment may prove your theory on a lab with controlled variables, for it to work you must test it out in a natural field. Its normal, the difference with physicists is that you can't make a claim that certain about things such as wormholes, anti-matter or other physics or astrophysics claims, because you can't see them.
@enjolraslechimiste really? Am I really, well actually I'm the one who studies a social science in university and you don't, so I wouldn't really be so sure of what you are saying. How about you inform yourself about sociology in a serious, not by just watching what they say in tv shows, and you might find out that I am actually right. But do stay ignorant if that is what you wish, however if you are going to criticize something, know about it before you do, just an advice
@awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye As an economist (and therefore part of the social sciences, as you yourself have agreed), and as someone who has taken some sociology, I am disappointed in you. "Then you prove your hypothesis with a series of variables and steps you must take." While your general point has merit, this bungling of the scientific method is so egregious that it doesn't even make sense. Variables are not in a series, nor are they proven; they are simply any part of the model that can change.
@MrPorthak You are right, I must excuse myself of the wrong word choice I have used. But I think you would agree that there is a scientific method used in sociology, at least when studied in depth. While it is true that when studying economy you study a class of sociology, you must agree that it is more related to social psychology... After all its roots come from the study of human behavior in society, which is one of the definitions for social psychology.
@MrPorthak What I was merely trying to point out, is that sociology is not a rubbish science, it is a quite important science, social science for that matter, that is present in many aspects of our everyday life. I find it very annoying when people who are ignorant to what it truly is, keep on demeaning this social science as if it were pure gibberish. If you or whoever else out there doesn't like it, well then state so, "It is my opinion that this science is not worth a while, because...."
@awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye "sociology is not a rubbish science, it is a quite important science, social science for that matter"
To what are you referring to when you qualify it as 'social'? I see much of sociology as rubbish for that exact reason, it's self-defining, but never ~gets to a point~. It's the difference between reasoning and rationalizing. Sociology rationalizes its own perspective, that is fundamentally flawed! Just as you did, just as it's perspectives do, it's rationalization.
@MrPorthak but whatever reasoning one has to believe this, he/she must give it some thought, come up with some valid explanation why in his own opinion it should be like he/she thinks. An that is really all I wanted to state, nothing more, and nothing less.
And I still find this video funny, I mean, thats what sociology was like 40 or more years ago, still an undeveloped social science and therefore very basic. But its different nowadays, in fact its very present in various perspectives of society. And in case you ask, no I am not studying sociology, but I'm studying psychology and I very much fancy Social psychology, which was up to one point the same science as sociology.
yeah... EyeHawk777,you do know that sociology and psychology are not the same, right? Because before you start judging them you should know a little about each. Sociology is related to a part of Social Psychology that is very important to the society itself. It inspects human behavior in society, and while you might not know it, all economics depends inmensly in both Social Psychology and Sociology. You are probably one who is affected constantly by marketing tricks developed by these sciences.
There is some truth to this song - as I see it, the social sciences are still in a kind of emancipation process from the natural sciences whose methods are clearly insufficient when it comes to analyzing the social sphere but which are still widely seen as the "only" way to do "real" science.
I'm just an idiot who has no clue what he's talking about half the time. But I'm a huge Lehrer fan anyhow. Kudos to all you smart people out there. (And to the ones who would LIKE us to think you're smart.)
Sociology invariably comes up against the problem that it cannot stick people into an experiment the results of which can be trusted or repeated. Man is too lairy a being to be caught in the trap of science as the inert and, if I may say so, rather stupid elementsof the periodic table are. If Sociology was a science we would be all be done for. How useful it would be to a dictator if he had a formula for revolution, if he could adjust this and that variable to guarantee his rule in perpetuity.
@paradigm918 I'm not sure this is 'satire'. That implies a sarcastic tone; this seems like a more direct attack. Which is not to say I wholly disagree with him.
What a hoot! A political "scientist" poking fun at sociology!! This would have been very popular in the Graduate Sociology program at University of Louisville. I was a Graduate Teaching Assistant in that program in '85-'86. I confess that I was far better at research methodology & theory than at statistics....
"thank god, someone else knows that sociology/psychology arnt real sciences!"
Psychology is, but not sociology. Ive studied both and sociology is mainly bullshit. Whatever science is in there falls under social psychology.
Also the need for psychology as its own science is questionable. Some of it is biology, and some is math. And most real research classified as psychology comes from math, biochemistry or computer science (Artificial Neural Networks).
He's really not taking the piss out of the social sciences but rather those who try to definitively "prove" their theories using maths, which seem to 'make sense' but often, to a mathematician or "hard" scientist are seen as meaningless or irrelevant.
That said, social scientists: have a sense of humour. "Hard" scientists: it makes you look bad when you bash other, less technical disciplines.
All stripes of academics are needed to understand the world, so why don't we be nice to each other.
Does no one listen to what he actually says in the video? This song is about the social sciences in general. He used "Sociology" only because it rolls of the tongue a little easier and matches the original title of the melody: "Choriography".
Sociology. The ecological niche for the completly ungifted. Ín the states they would cll them liberals. Here in europe we call them leftwingers or simply Generation68
Sociology. The ecological niche for the completly ungifted. Ín the states they would cll them liberals. Here in europe we call them leftwingers or simply Generation68
What? It's about using numbers to know about society, and how that's idiotic. It's not about your political philosophy. I think you've completely missed the point, which isn't surprising: your whole post pretty much typecasts you as the typical, blame-happy dumbass.
I think I'll insult to my heart's content (though, if you read my post, you'd see I had done more than insult), but don't let me make a hypocrite out of you! Golly, just how ironic can you get?
The parody only works for American sociology. Traditionally American-styled sociology at that. In the States, sociology has more or less been synonymous with statistics until comparatively late. In continental Europe and even the UK, sociology has more in common with critical theory, anthropology and political science.
So true, my company created some statistical models to a large alcohol distributor to show things like Johnnie Walker Blue drinkers don't drink PBR, and because we gave them a presentation that went over their heads, they paid dearly for it.
So true, my company created some statistical models to a large alcohol distributor to show things like Johnnie Walker Blue drinkers don't drink PBR, and because we gave them a presentation that went over their heads, they paid dearly for it.
Do it. If you want to, and really feel passionate about it, just do it.
I don't see why you should waste your life away doing something you don't want to do, I mean, enjolraslechimiste says you should do physics or mathematics, but if you hate that, I really wouldn't recommend it.
@TheLittleBlackBear Don't. Learn a skill where you can reliably get a job (because the skill is economically desirable). Computers, chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics are all desirable. Do engineering if you're struggling too much with the hard-core theory of chemistry or physics (but if you can, do chemistry or physics, since a good physicist can pick up all types of engineering easily, but the reverse is far from true).
@enjolraslechimiste You realize that politicians pay quite a bit for sociologists to advise them, right? So do many corporations. And internationally in countries like China and Japan, where society was very group oriented unlike the individualism that is pressured here, sociologists can make fortunes.
You are impressed that some people are willing to give some money to some other people for a certain service, and therefore that's validation of its rightness? That's crazy. I guess all the products on late-night infomercials and porn are legitimate, too. So are the little trinkets at Disneyland. You're ignoring the bigger trend: MOST sociology degrees (as are most degrees not in foreign language/science/math/computers) aren't really useful for any one job.
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured by the German BND which is the former Gestapo during five and a half years. He was assassinated on July 11th09 because of our homepage linked on my channel.
As I see it Sociology studies the wood (a thick growth of trees; forest or grove), Psychology studies the trees, but Ecology encompasses so much more. :-)
Psychology is a science. Unfortunately, when people hear of psychology, they think of Freud, who was more of a philosopher. Freud created psychoanalysis-which is all but rejected in modern psychology.
i am a sociologist and sociology definitely is science. a social science. but there are a lot of people who don't think that social science is science. and they are to some extent right, but that's a very narrow definition of science (which excludes economy, psychology, law or medicine).
but i agree that sociology today is over mathematized and gets too tangled up in it's own jargon. and i love the song too.
As a matter of interest, where do you see sociology "going" as a field. I am concerned that it seems "dead in the water", other social sciences having stripped it of everything of value.
@formless777 i am surprised by someone's genuine interest to hear other people's opinion. sociology already gave it's best contributions, ideas and insights to the world, but nothing seams to have really changed. i suppose that sociology will linger on on the margin of academic comunity, happy and content to be able to be a part of that comunity. which only supports some sociological insights into human social nature. it seems that in this greed driven world sociology can not do much else.yuask?
The reason I ask is that I am a psychologist, and was very interested in social psychology in my university days. I notice anthropology snipping a little here, political science snipping a little there, even economics has a nibble. I don't think sociology is as over as semiology (officially declared dead), but it really seems to have lost the impetus that it once had. Who do you think are the leading lights in sociology these days ?
@formless777 i'm reluctant to give names for several reasons. after college i got a job that unfortunatley had nothing to do with sociology, so i feel that i'm loosing touch with the latest development and research. also, i found that it were non-sociologists who gave the most interesting ideas about society and societies. also, i don't believe that increasingly popular multi-culti mumbo-jumbo is anything more than (almost) empty talk...
@formless777 ...ritzer is on to something with his weberian work in disenchantment and re-enchantment. historian immanuel wallerstein gives a nice frame for viewing current world events. edvard said was great in disclosing western hypocrisy in relation with "the east". anthropologist stephen j. gould had his take on IQ and it's misinterpretations. philosopher slavoj zizek has interesting ideas on about what needs to be done...
@formless777 ..., and linguist noam chomsky tells it like it is (with detailed evidence) also. terry eagleton offers nice balanced left wing take on human nature. fukuyama was proven wrong by the history, and malcom gladwell is full of shit. psychologists zimbardo and barry schwartz are making some very remarkable and important discoveries.
what do you think? where do you get your inspiration about thing of people and societies?
jubitoftw, I did a bit of political science, history, economics, anthropology, philosophy, sociology and legal studies before settling on psychology. I think that ultimately the social sciences are part of psychology and that at the moment there is a false consciousness which suggests that we need more disciplines, rather than pooling effective methodologies into a single disciplinary curriculum.
@formless777 of course, you understand that i can not agree with you. social reality is in essence different than individual psychology. as we sociologists like to say, it is reality "sui generis". just as woods are more than just a group of trees. and only false consciousness is psychological idea that humans can be understood by measuring of individual conscoiusnesses. we need as many different disciplines as we can find, as we need to shed light on human nature from as many angles as we can.
I think there is need for a little clarification jubitoftw about what social psychology is about. It is not only about how individuals and groups inter-relate but about how groups and societies inter-relate. Ultimately what we are looking for are descriptive methods which move into the area of being predictive. I think your concerns are valid, but ultimately every theory has to be somewhat reductionist, yet remain usefully descriptive.
he was just making fun of social scientists, particularly sociologists, in the 60s for the lengths they went to trying to get their fields of study recognized as a science
pirbird: So medicine isn't a science, right? I mean, no two humans (or samples from any species) are identical, so you can't replicate the results.
Yes, social sciences by and large can't provide inviolable laws. They can't say "This vowel shift will occur in the next decade". But they can say "When this vowel shifts, it will shift to a 'ee' (85% probability.) or an "ih" (12%)
Social sciences are, true, currently full of dogma and pseudoscience but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I read an essay, about 40 years ago, which called socisl sciences the new Black Arts. Still, you may be right. Goog things did eventually come from astrology and alchemy.
Alchemy at least is fairly apt (and probably even more so 40 years ago): they're fields which are to a greater or lesser degree suffering from untested theories from armchair workers being taken as gospel, but moving towards a more accurate system.
However, it's rather unfair to lump all the social sciences together: for example, psychology and linguistics are both far more rigorous than economics (fuck, let's face it, most of the time psychology is more rigorous than pharmacology)
Wow! Another lost Lehrer classic! And the second time he's inspired by a song originally sung by Danny Kaye ("Lobachevsky" was inspired by Kaye's "Stanislovsky")! Thanks for posting!
Sociology isn't all about numbers, matrices and statistics. Quantitative research methods are but one part of a much broader spectrum of ways to give scientific explenations to social acts.
But what's really at stake here is the question when one could define something as scientific. If science is the quest for invariable laws, then one could say that sociology is less scientific then for example physics. But in my opinion, 'science' is much broader then such an nomothetic interpretation.
That is indeed one way to look at science, but I find that a very narrow definition
But ofcourse, if you want to look at science in that way, then that is your good right. And of course that's also the good right of Mr. Lehrer.
But I want to point out to you that mainstream sociology is very keen on measuring. Most sociologists measure certain attributes and try to formulate laws on the statistical results of these measurements. So in that way, with your definition, sociology is science.
I love when sociologists or economists try to tell physicists and chemists what is science.
Maybe you guys should take a hint: we don't consider you science.
Even this comment reeks of the problem: "...one could say that sociology is less scientific then for example physics." You can't be "less scientific." It is measurably reproduced or it isn't.
@enjolraslechimiste well i do love at least as much when physicists and chemists try to draw conclusions about the society and people when they have no idea about them, concluding that if they live in it, and see it, they know everything about it.
I also adore when they say that there sociology is no science and it is useless when they have no clue about what sociology really is, especially i adore when they are trying to persuade me that they now what sociology is, as they read like 5 studies
@enjolraslechimiste oh, and at leasts, when sociologists talk about the "real science" they have theories and researches proving there theories behind them whereas when "real scientists" talk about social studies they usually have nothing
You don't get it. Real scientists do not claim to have the right answers about social studies, because it's social studies: there are no right answers.
@enjolraslechimiste i'm pretty sure, as i have brain physicist acquittance that they do claim to have right answers about how people work and how people work in groups, and i guess genetics does have some interesting theories as well, not to talk about link theories. And you see, the social constraint to spell right is much less on a community site than for example in a scientific essay, so i don't understand why is it so important for u :).
@frosztmami If one is a brain physicist you can have the logic and technology to establish a theory based on science, if you're a sociologist you just guess -.-
@CreepersOnSpeed Seriously? You just guess... What the hell do you guys know about sociology? You probably don't know jack, and you are saying all sorts of BS. Its called a social science, because there is a f***ing scientific method. Its not just guessing, its called a hypothesis, jackass!! Which btw also is done in other sciences. Then you prove your hypothesis with a series of variables and steps you must take. Please don't talk about something you have no fucking idea about.
@CreepersOnSpeed well, I'd definitely be glad if you gave me one, but I'd much prefer if you would learn something out of this... ups sorry, forgot. To learn something you must have a capable and yours... well... yours just isn't up to the task...
@enjolraslechimiste how in heavens do you know for sure that just because they are social studies there are no right answers. Thats BS. In everything there are exceptions, even in Biology, however that does not mean that there are no right answers. There are behavioral patterns that are found in not all, but most people. If you were to test out whatever theory, like for example, solomon Asch theory of submision, you would find that out of 100 people, at least 95 would prove the theory.
You're missing the point. This is a statement of the field at large. Physicists, at large, do not claim the answers to questions they obviously cannot answer. Economists love to do this (they love to predict how the economy is going to grow down to the cent...and yet they can't consistently predict the order of magnitude of the growth (or even the sign, sometimes). Same problem here.
@enjolraslechimiste no, you are the one that is missing the point. You see, true scientists do not make those claims as you have stated, since they know they cannot apply it to the field at large. Just as good Sociologists and good Economists will do. Besides, Aristotle was a scientist and philosopher at his given time, and he said that a thing such as spontaneous generation existed. And it wasn't proven wrong till 19th century. He claimed that that was the right answer. He was scientist.
@awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye "He claimed that that was the right answer. He was scientist."
You are saying that because he claimed he was correct he was a scientist. No, you are profoundly ignorant of Aristotle, he was not a scientist in any sense of the word. He was a philosopher, but not a scientist. Social philosophy wasn't really his thing either like Plato, Aristotle was about metaphysics and ethics.
@DOHC2L well, you see, in 384 BC, phylosophy was the closest thing there was to science... After all everything is born from phylosophy so you could technically call it a science, or the father of science. But even if we categorize him as a philosopher and not a scientist, Spontaneous Generation? A theory created in 350 BC or so... and it wasn't proven wrong till the 19th century-...that's roughly 2000 years.... quite a lot of time... there must have been a scientific background to that.
@awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye "well, you see, in 384 BC, phylosophy was the closest thing there was to science... After all everything is born from phylosophy so you could technically call it a science, or the father of science."
No, your reasons are idiotic. The scientific method excludes considerations for using approximation for any reason. Science is exact, philosophy is different. If you truly want to understand these disciplines, don't just guess at them, learn them. And use proper grammar.
@DOHC2L ok, I admit I made a mistake in the word "philosophy" I'm spanish and I sometimes get mixed up with a couple of words, but we both know all to well that science is not exact... because something exact excludes any type of exception, and unless you have studied sciences in a very weird manner you should know that there are many types of exceptions in all fields of science. Exact is an equivalent of perfection, which is obviously non-existent in this world.
@DOHC2L "Science" is the human pursuit of knowledge through observation and reasoning. The scientific method, while an important part of it, does not define science.
Physics, mathematics, and chemistry can be called "hard" sciences because those studying them can work with incredible precision and predictability. Psychology and sociology (and historical sciences) may be called "soft" sciences because they cannot observe their subject matter with such near-perfect systems. But they can [cont'd]
@35Chappell According to your definition of "Science" lots of religions would be considered science.
I recommend revising your definition to include an importance upon the scientific method and, more importantly, the fluidity of science through persuasion of reproducible results.
To add, social sciences have had a hard time justifying themselves as sciences because their outcomes aren't entirely reproducible. Not saying they're not, but they do have trouble being categorized.
observe the human mind, social interaction, or historical evidence and, through careful experimentation, better understand the subject. THAT is science.
But yes, the fact remains that psychology and sociology in particular are very "soft" sciences, and their subject matter cannot be perfectly understood. When psychologists and especially sociologists try to assume that their area can be so precise, they come up with a collection of ideas that is distressingly presumptuous.
@11Agamemnon235 "Any science student would tell you that science is not exact.(except for mathematics)"
But a scientist wouldn't say that. Instead of speculating what other people would say, what do you say? How is science not exact? If something is not exact it must be an approximation. So, how is science not exact, and how is science an approximation? Be sure not to confuse the concepts of theory and hypothesis in your answer. Claims that lack explanation is speculation...
@DOHC2L My friend, science creates models of nature. Our models are only exact in the sense of their internal workings. In terms of how they apply to actually real world situations, they are, in fact, approximations. Our calculations almost NEVER agree exactlly with experimental observations--they are within a margin of error. Later, when we have a more accurate theory, this margin of error shrinks. In fact, there are a lot of physists who argue that any improvements to the standard model
@11Agamemnon235 would just be an improvement in decimal places. These are therefore, finer and finer approximations. Our expression of scientific theory may be precise, and the calculations within a given one exact, however, in relation to real events, they are not exact. We create spaces in which our manipulations are absolute. These spaces are not nature; nature isn't a mathematical space. Our spaces become more and more representitive of nature as science progresses. What else would you call
@11Agamemnon235 it but approximation? Most scientists are, by the way, pragmatists, myself being one of them. Please do not equate synthetic statements with analytical ones. Science, excluding mathematics, is inductive.
Thank you, Tom! They can toss numbers and equations and jargon around all they want, but it will never be science.
5610winston 1 day ago
Comment removed
JimBowie1133 1 month ago
Social Sciences have a qualitative aspect and a quantitative aspect. Due to subject matter they can not be approached in the same exact way as the physical sciences. They limit their use when they try to mimic they physical sciences and this has been a hindrance to their progression and usefulness. We are in a state of economic crisis, war, crime, family dysfunction, mental and psychological dysfunction - These problems that face us are in the realm of social sciences.
JimBowie1133 1 month ago
sreba68 & panjawel2 are both insufferably boorish douchebags..
broadjumper1 2 months ago 5
@broadjumper1
Cheers fanny-balls.
sreba68 1 month ago
@broadjumper1
Maybe, but hey, at least we're not retarded christians.
panjawel2 1 month ago
I can agree it's ridiculous for sociologists to try and import maths as a means to try and cover it in a scientific gloss but this song is pathetic. You can hear the smugness in his voice when he says "science" in relation to sociology at the end. The biggest issue sociology has had is in accepting the definition of science found within the natural sciences and importing their legacy of empiricism and positivism into it's own areas of study. Highly recommend Bhaskar for an alternative view.
sreba68 3 months ago
Sociology was invented so that stupid people can be 'scientists' too.
panjawel2 3 months ago
@panjawel2
All this statement has convinced me of is that you are a stupid person.
sreba68 3 months ago
@sreba68
All this statement has convinced me that you are a sociologist and a retard. Enjoy being inferior.
panjawel2 3 months ago
@panjawel2
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Your false sense of superiority is rather banal. All that's different between the natural and social sciences is the object of study and the need to use a method of study appropriate to that object.. Maths and statistical modelling are limited approaches to understanding society but to move from rightly criticising the (VERY) few of those who try to use them in sociology to a general critique of sociology is sheer ignorance of the what it is and does.
sreba68 2 months ago
@sreba68
Keep living in dogmatic delusion, leave critical thinking to scientists. Social "sciences" don't use the scientific method and are heavily influenced by ideological trends and political correctness, therefore they aren't sciences at all. You can shout "I am scientist too!" as much as you want, it won't make you one. Sociobiology is the only valuable sociological theory, and it was universally hated by most sociologists for being "too scientific". Science is hard, let's be sociologists!
panjawel2 2 months ago
@panjawel2
I love how you assert I am dogmatic when you are the one spouting about THE scientific method - something not even used universally across the natural sciences. If you mean that sociology regularly exposes exploitation as ideology and political correctness all it is showing is your inability to handle science. Science is indeed hard - hence we need to avoid the easy option of trying to apply a positivist model onto something that cannot be understood in such a reductive way.
sreba68 2 months ago
@sreba68
So you're calling scientific method dogmatic? Hahaha oh wow. See, that's why you're not a scientist. Oh, and scientific method is used universally across ALL sciences. It's hilarious how you're still stuck in postmodernism. Social "sciences" will be utterly obliterated with the growth of neurosciences - but sociologists shouldn't worry about losing their jobs, they work at McDonalds anyway.
Science deals with facts, sociology deals with opinions and half-assed unverifiable "theories".
panjawel2 2 months ago
@panjawel2
You're only showing your lack of attention there. I did not say scientific method was wrong - I was saying talk of THE scientific method was. Meteorology for example due to the nature of the object of study cannot proceed along the lines of closed experiments. I think scientific method is hugely important and I would never class myself as postmodernist. Unverifiable? Mate, I'm currently half way through three years of field work I deal plenty with empirical work.
sreba68 2 months ago
@sreba68
So tell me, what verifiable theory of society did you manage to create. Oh wait, none. Just like all the sociologists before you. What about Talcott Parsons? He's considered a classic, and his "theories" are just a bunch of hoey, even sociologists I know admit that. Only in social "sciences" you can pass meaningless babbling as a theory, can you imagine something like that in real science? Not really, because real science is based on facts, not opinions.
panjawel2 2 months ago
@panjawel2
Parsons? Really - do you know how few sociologists would claim to subscribe to Parsons? Your same question could be put to physics where was it not within the last century that Newton was replaced by Einstein? Theories are replaced as understandings improve. I'd agree there is a lot of babbling as theory by those who don't do empirical work. You're mistaking such people though as representing sociology as a whole; all you're displaying is your ignorance of the field.
sreba68 1 month ago
@panjawel2
Again neuroscience - not only can't it fully explain consciousness neither can it explain society - it's like using physics to explain human biology! Honestly with all these unverified opinions and half-arsed understandings of scientific procedure I doubt whether you've ever done any scientific work yourself?
sreba68 2 months ago
@sreba68
You fail at reading and at understanding the world around you, I see. Neuroscience is still undeveloped, it can't explain consciousness nor society now, but it will be able to do so in time. Sociology will never explain society, because it lacks the tools to explore human brain - it's just obsolete, deal with it. You can't research quantum physics with stone-age technology, if you get my analogy.
Well, you for sure haven't done any scientific work, you're not a scientist after all.
panjawel2 2 months ago
@panjawel2
Can you use physics solely to explain the workings of my heart or even use quantum physics to explain neurological activity in the brain? No, and the suggestion of it is ludicrous. Sure further understandings of the working of the brain will have obvious implications for understanding sociological phenomena but such phenomena can't be reduced to neurological activity. Are you so stupid to claim to explain capitalist market economies by the firing of neurons?
sreba68 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sreba68
"Are you so stupid to claim to explain capitalist market economies by the firing of neurons?"
Are you so stupid to use such obvious strawmans? Yep, it seems you are.
Honestly, are you comparing changes of bullshit sociological theories to what happened in physics? Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Newtonian physics wasn't overthrown nor proven wrong, it is still widely used, so your analogy is wrong.
panjawel2 1 month ago
@panjawel2
I can highly recommend Andrew Sayer - Method in Social Science if you want to actually learn about scientific method within social science rather than spouting nonsense about postmodernism - something rejected by the majority of those doing sociology. Brilliantly explains why positivism gives a false account of not just social but also natural science as well as setting out implications for social science from taking a critical realist position and the need to do empirical work.
sreba68 2 months ago
@sreba68 don't waste your time, hatters gonna hate. Social sciences are sciences, let them be.
mortemdei 1 month ago
@panjawel2
Also that humans are a product of evolution and that process of evolution has had an impact upon the way we act that sociobiology contends I have absolutely no problem with. It's got a lot of interesting things to say but it tends towards over exaggerating its finding - it's its lack of being scientific that is the problem! The tendency to reduce social interaction only to biology though is the same as trying to explain the functioning of the body using only physics.
sreba68 2 months ago
I'm an anthropology major and I fucking love this song
gwazz 4 months ago
Every scientist likes to talk smack about overlapping sciences. Biologists vs. physicists, physicists vs. chemists, geneticists vs. botanists. These conflicts are real, talk to your professors. If an astronomy professor says he wrote his doctorate on string theory, feel free to make fun of him. But he has every right to say "pipe down, psychologist." Need to switch a lab in the chem dept? Happy to accommodate you. Request the same from the bio dept. and you'd think you asked for their sandwich.
bvolsky 5 months ago
Comment removed
LadyofTalent 5 months ago
Also, enjolraslechimiste, in science there are constantly beign made claims about what the right thing to follow should be, because while one experiment may prove your theory on a lab with controlled variables, for it to work you must test it out in a natural field. Its normal, the difference with physicists is that you can't make a claim that certain about things such as wormholes, anti-matter or other physics or astrophysics claims, because you can't see them.
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 6 months ago
@awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye
You are quite sad...you really have no idea what you're talking about.
enjolraslechimiste 6 months ago
@enjolraslechimiste really? Am I really, well actually I'm the one who studies a social science in university and you don't, so I wouldn't really be so sure of what you are saying. How about you inform yourself about sociology in a serious, not by just watching what they say in tv shows, and you might find out that I am actually right. But do stay ignorant if that is what you wish, however if you are going to criticize something, know about it before you do, just an advice
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 6 months ago
@awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye As an economist (and therefore part of the social sciences, as you yourself have agreed), and as someone who has taken some sociology, I am disappointed in you. "Then you prove your hypothesis with a series of variables and steps you must take." While your general point has merit, this bungling of the scientific method is so egregious that it doesn't even make sense. Variables are not in a series, nor are they proven; they are simply any part of the model that can change.
MrPorthak 6 months ago
@MrPorthak You are right, I must excuse myself of the wrong word choice I have used. But I think you would agree that there is a scientific method used in sociology, at least when studied in depth. While it is true that when studying economy you study a class of sociology, you must agree that it is more related to social psychology... After all its roots come from the study of human behavior in society, which is one of the definitions for social psychology.
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 6 months ago
@MrPorthak What I was merely trying to point out, is that sociology is not a rubbish science, it is a quite important science, social science for that matter, that is present in many aspects of our everyday life. I find it very annoying when people who are ignorant to what it truly is, keep on demeaning this social science as if it were pure gibberish. If you or whoever else out there doesn't like it, well then state so, "It is my opinion that this science is not worth a while, because...."
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 6 months ago
@awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye "sociology is not a rubbish science, it is a quite important science, social science for that matter"
To what are you referring to when you qualify it as 'social'? I see much of sociology as rubbish for that exact reason, it's self-defining, but never ~gets to a point~. It's the difference between reasoning and rationalizing. Sociology rationalizes its own perspective, that is fundamentally flawed! Just as you did, just as it's perspectives do, it's rationalization.
DOHC2L 6 months ago 2
@MrPorthak but whatever reasoning one has to believe this, he/she must give it some thought, come up with some valid explanation why in his own opinion it should be like he/she thinks. An that is really all I wanted to state, nothing more, and nothing less.
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 6 months ago
@capturetheory you are so right, finally someone that talks while knowing something, damnit!!
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 6 months ago
And I still find this video funny, I mean, thats what sociology was like 40 or more years ago, still an undeveloped social science and therefore very basic. But its different nowadays, in fact its very present in various perspectives of society. And in case you ask, no I am not studying sociology, but I'm studying psychology and I very much fancy Social psychology, which was up to one point the same science as sociology.
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 6 months ago
yeah... EyeHawk777,you do know that sociology and psychology are not the same, right? Because before you start judging them you should know a little about each. Sociology is related to a part of Social Psychology that is very important to the society itself. It inspects human behavior in society, and while you might not know it, all economics depends inmensly in both Social Psychology and Sociology. You are probably one who is affected constantly by marketing tricks developed by these sciences.
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 6 months ago
@capturetheory don't worry i never thought that, not even for a second
sirinferno 6 months ago
Comment removed
sirinferno 6 months ago
@capturetheory yeah but you're a homo
sirinferno 6 months ago
@sirinferno and you're an immature and ignorant.
erroll9621 6 months ago
@erroll9621 and you're an moran
sirinferno 6 months ago
There is some truth to this song - as I see it, the social sciences are still in a kind of emancipation process from the natural sciences whose methods are clearly insufficient when it comes to analyzing the social sphere but which are still widely seen as the "only" way to do "real" science.
DoJaenin 7 months ago
@capturetheory and your work is least important
sirinferno 7 months ago
Are there empirical facts to learn about human society? Yes or no.
hymnofashes 7 months ago
Who here would love to have had Tom Lehrer as their Professor?
Obsessedwithtophats 8 months ago 25
I'm just an idiot who has no clue what he's talking about half the time. But I'm a huge Lehrer fan anyhow. Kudos to all you smart people out there. (And to the ones who would LIKE us to think you're smart.)
casestudyification 9 months ago
Sociology invariably comes up against the problem that it cannot stick people into an experiment the results of which can be trusted or repeated. Man is too lairy a being to be caught in the trap of science as the inert and, if I may say so, rather stupid elementsof the periodic table are. If Sociology was a science we would be all be done for. How useful it would be to a dictator if he had a formula for revolution, if he could adjust this and that variable to guarantee his rule in perpetuity.
kevinastraw 9 months ago
>Political Sci-.. studies
Much better.
MattyHild 9 months ago
a quantified theroy of everything would envelope sociology, as sheldon would say
ericfam01 10 months ago
do you know why you are doing what you are doing - sociologists can show you why
nocheapthing 11 months ago
hm wo ist mein traumprinz
slanceful 1 year ago 23
his humor is so intelligent=)
chrisf2612 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
online Asian wives ***lushfmlk.info***
adriekebriy 1 year ago
Looking at the comments, it seems to me as if several collegiate major programs fail to cover the concept of "satire."
paradigm918 1 year ago 29
@paradigm918 I'm not sure this is 'satire'. That implies a sarcastic tone; this seems like a more direct attack. Which is not to say I wholly disagree with him.
35Chappell 4 months ago
What a hoot! A political "scientist" poking fun at sociology!! This would have been very popular in the Graduate Sociology program at University of Louisville. I was a Graduate Teaching Assistant in that program in '85-'86. I confess that I was far better at research methodology & theory than at statistics....
aardvark0123 1 year ago
lol - as a sociologist... i find this to be quite humorous!
I also find it to be more a commentary on the Economics profession than Sociology. hehe - had to make the jab. ;)
leopierson 1 year ago
@leopierson
as a sociology major i was thinking the same thing too (about economic)
ztakn 1 year ago
it's amazing that a man(i believe in this he is in his 70s?) that he still has the wonderful speaking and singing voice he had over 50 years ago
thEannoyingE 1 year ago
"thank god, someone else knows that sociology/psychology arnt real sciences!"
Psychology is, but not sociology. Ive studied both and sociology is mainly bullshit. Whatever science is in there falls under social psychology.
Also the need for psychology as its own science is questionable. Some of it is biology, and some is math. And most real research classified as psychology comes from math, biochemistry or computer science (Artificial Neural Networks).
Faldegast 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Online Asian girls #lushfmlk.info#
akikohannri 1 year ago
27 people are sociology majors lol.
rainbowheydrich 1 year ago 3
thank god, someone else knows that sociology/psychology arnt real sciences!
EyeHawk777 1 year ago
@EyeHawk777
Sociology isn't psychology, you idiot.
RomZomCom 1 year ago
If Freud was born in america he would be named Dick!
BigAndTall666 1 year ago
@BigAndTall666 Freud was a "Dick" :D Maslow make more "sense"
rangeclerk 1 year ago
Very Jung´ian! :-P
BigAndTall666 1 year ago
I'm a sociology major and I find this hilarious :D
Though it's not the easiest undergrad major there is, if you go to a good school - that would be English.
TowerPrinces1483 1 year ago
@TowerPrinces1483 I beg to differ. Anyone who went to a good school will know the Visual Communications kids have it the easiest :)
nopedamnit 1 year ago
@nopedamnit My school's good, it's just too tiny to have majors like that :D
TowerPrinces1483 1 year ago
He's really not taking the piss out of the social sciences but rather those who try to definitively "prove" their theories using maths, which seem to 'make sense' but often, to a mathematician or "hard" scientist are seen as meaningless or irrelevant.
That said, social scientists: have a sense of humour. "Hard" scientists: it makes you look bad when you bash other, less technical disciplines.
All stripes of academics are needed to understand the world, so why don't we be nice to each other.
slavetoeducation 1 year ago 4
@slavetoeducation Look into game theory.
DaisukeMHU 1 year ago
I always referred to it as "sissy-ology". Easiest undergrad major there is.
BenAliGtor 1 year ago
@BenAliGtor Close. I think Elementary Ed takes the cake, there though. Close 2nd.
MrBeatdown 1 year ago
@BenAliGtor
gramule 1 year ago
sociology is interesting, which is more than i can say about the maths i have experienced in sociology
monteoner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some university departments aren't worth too much respect, ie:
Sociology, English, and Education
soben001 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
soben001 1 year ago
Does no one listen to what he actually says in the video? This song is about the social sciences in general. He used "Sociology" only because it rolls of the tongue a little easier and matches the original title of the melody: "Choriography".
Fnargles 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sociology. The ecological niche for the completly ungifted. Ín the states they would cll them liberals. Here in europe we call them leftwingers or simply Generation68
bowman2061 1 year ago
Sociology. The ecological niche for the completly ungifted. Ín the states they would cll them liberals. Here in europe we call them leftwingers or simply Generation68
bowman2061 1 year ago
What? It's about using numbers to know about society, and how that's idiotic. It's not about your political philosophy. I think you've completely missed the point, which isn't surprising: your whole post pretty much typecasts you as the typical, blame-happy dumbass.
SgtSanchez 1 year ago
@SgtSanchez
Seems i hit the raw point. if insults are all you can contribute ... keep it.
bowman2061 1 year ago
I think I'll insult to my heart's content (though, if you read my post, you'd see I had done more than insult), but don't let me make a hypocrite out of you! Golly, just how ironic can you get?
SgtSanchez 1 year ago
full of...sociology!
herzogsbuick 1 year ago
The parody only works for American sociology. Traditionally American-styled sociology at that. In the States, sociology has more or less been synonymous with statistics until comparatively late. In continental Europe and even the UK, sociology has more in common with critical theory, anthropology and political science.
tomsega 1 year ago 2
Economists are a disgrace to humanity
roddyjojo 1 year ago
He really nailed sociology!
CountNomis 1 year ago
So true, my company created some statistical models to a large alcohol distributor to show things like Johnnie Walker Blue drinkers don't drink PBR, and because we gave them a presentation that went over their heads, they paid dearly for it.
JungleEd17 1 year ago
So true, my company created some statistical models to a large alcohol distributor to show things like Johnnie Walker Blue drinkers don't drink PBR, and because we gave them a presentation that went over their heads, they paid dearly for it.
JungleEd17 1 year ago
@thelittleblackbear
Do it. If you want to, and really feel passionate about it, just do it.
I don't see why you should waste your life away doing something you don't want to do, I mean, enjolraslechimiste says you should do physics or mathematics, but if you hate that, I really wouldn't recommend it.
WhiteAndBlackWings 1 year ago
RAWR~! What an interesting video! I am thinking of going into sociology, any thoughts? Promises, pitfalls? Thanks :D
TheLittleBlackBear 1 year ago
@TheLittleBlackBear Don't. Learn a skill where you can reliably get a job (because the skill is economically desirable). Computers, chemistry, biology, physics, and mathematics are all desirable. Do engineering if you're struggling too much with the hard-core theory of chemistry or physics (but if you can, do chemistry or physics, since a good physicist can pick up all types of engineering easily, but the reverse is far from true).
enjolraslechimiste 1 year ago
@enjolraslechimiste You realize that politicians pay quite a bit for sociologists to advise them, right? So do many corporations. And internationally in countries like China and Japan, where society was very group oriented unlike the individualism that is pressured here, sociologists can make fortunes.
UselessTies150 1 year ago
@UselessTies150
You are impressed that some people are willing to give some money to some other people for a certain service, and therefore that's validation of its rightness? That's crazy. I guess all the products on late-night infomercials and porn are legitimate, too. So are the little trinkets at Disneyland. You're ignoring the bigger trend: MOST sociology degrees (as are most degrees not in foreign language/science/math/computers) aren't really useful for any one job.
enjolraslechimiste 1 year ago
@TheLittleBlackBear Do it!
I was sceptical at first, too, but sociology is really the best thing to do
RunningFromthe80s 1 year ago
@TheLittleBlackBear If you like math (computer science, physics, calculus), then do economics. Also consider psychology or political science.
JungleEd17 1 year ago
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured by the German BND which is the former Gestapo during five and a half years. He was assassinated on July 11th09 because of our homepage linked on my channel.
Martin Bott
wwwtotalitaerde 1 year ago
kfjc plays tom lehrer's songs on the radio
TEMPmichaelhansen 1 year ago
As I see it Sociology studies the wood (a thick growth of trees; forest or grove), Psychology studies the trees, but Ecology encompasses so much more. :-)
flamencoprof 1 year ago
So who thinks that statistics is a form of mathematical rhetoric ?
formless777 1 year ago
sociology did for education what dogma did for meditation and prayer.
OctoBox 2 years ago
Not one of his best.
wilus1969 2 years ago
Next they'll try to tell us that psychology and (scoff) economics are sciences. RIDICULOUS!
5610winston 2 years ago
guess u should try to study psychology outside the us^^
sohnes 2 years ago
Psychology is a science. Unfortunately, when people hear of psychology, they think of Freud, who was more of a philosopher. Freud created psychoanalysis-which is all but rejected in modern psychology.
godsownphilosopher 2 years ago
i am a sociologist and sociology definitely is science. a social science. but there are a lot of people who don't think that social science is science. and they are to some extent right, but that's a very narrow definition of science (which excludes economy, psychology, law or medicine).
but i agree that sociology today is over mathematized and gets too tangled up in it's own jargon. and i love the song too.
5 stars
jubitoftw 2 years ago 2
its
tomhascallcole 2 years ago 2
As a matter of interest, where do you see sociology "going" as a field. I am concerned that it seems "dead in the water", other social sciences having stripped it of everything of value.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 that depends on what you think "value" is.
jubitoftw 1 year ago
@jubitoftw LOL fair call. I am genuinely interested in what you think is on the horizon for sociol as a discipline regardless.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 i am surprised by someone's genuine interest to hear other people's opinion. sociology already gave it's best contributions, ideas and insights to the world, but nothing seams to have really changed. i suppose that sociology will linger on on the margin of academic comunity, happy and content to be able to be a part of that comunity. which only supports some sociological insights into human social nature. it seems that in this greed driven world sociology can not do much else.yuask?
jubitoftw 1 year ago
@formless777 it looks "dead in the water" to me, too. and definitly some social sciences are benefiting from sociological tradition.
but it's not a race, so that may not be a bad thing.
;-)
jubitoftw 1 year ago
The reason I ask is that I am a psychologist, and was very interested in social psychology in my university days. I notice anthropology snipping a little here, political science snipping a little there, even economics has a nibble. I don't think sociology is as over as semiology (officially declared dead), but it really seems to have lost the impetus that it once had. Who do you think are the leading lights in sociology these days ?
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 i'm reluctant to give names for several reasons. after college i got a job that unfortunatley had nothing to do with sociology, so i feel that i'm loosing touch with the latest development and research. also, i found that it were non-sociologists who gave the most interesting ideas about society and societies. also, i don't believe that increasingly popular multi-culti mumbo-jumbo is anything more than (almost) empty talk...
jubitoftw 1 year ago
@formless777 ...ritzer is on to something with his weberian work in disenchantment and re-enchantment. historian immanuel wallerstein gives a nice frame for viewing current world events. edvard said was great in disclosing western hypocrisy in relation with "the east". anthropologist stephen j. gould had his take on IQ and it's misinterpretations. philosopher slavoj zizek has interesting ideas on about what needs to be done...
jubitoftw 1 year ago
@formless777 ..., and linguist noam chomsky tells it like it is (with detailed evidence) also. terry eagleton offers nice balanced left wing take on human nature. fukuyama was proven wrong by the history, and malcom gladwell is full of shit. psychologists zimbardo and barry schwartz are making some very remarkable and important discoveries.
what do you think? where do you get your inspiration about thing of people and societies?
jubitoftw 1 year ago
jubitoftw, I did a bit of political science, history, economics, anthropology, philosophy, sociology and legal studies before settling on psychology. I think that ultimately the social sciences are part of psychology and that at the moment there is a false consciousness which suggests that we need more disciplines, rather than pooling effective methodologies into a single disciplinary curriculum.
formless777 1 year ago
@formless777 of course, you understand that i can not agree with you. social reality is in essence different than individual psychology. as we sociologists like to say, it is reality "sui generis". just as woods are more than just a group of trees. and only false consciousness is psychological idea that humans can be understood by measuring of individual conscoiusnesses. we need as many different disciplines as we can find, as we need to shed light on human nature from as many angles as we can.
jubitoftw 1 year ago
I think there is need for a little clarification jubitoftw about what social psychology is about. It is not only about how individuals and groups inter-relate but about how groups and societies inter-relate. Ultimately what we are looking for are descriptive methods which move into the area of being predictive. I think your concerns are valid, but ultimately every theory has to be somewhat reductionist, yet remain usefully descriptive.
formless777 1 year ago
of all the years of listening to dr demento and such, this is the first time for me hearing tom speak!
nirvgardengod 2 years ago
after years of owning his greatest hits album, this is the first time for me seeing him
akasaart 2 years ago
science is the study of the world around us however Sociology, is the study of people so in a way is a science i suppose.
TheDavynator0 2 years ago
its definitely science
he was just making fun of social scientists, particularly sociologists, in the 60s for the lengths they went to trying to get their fields of study recognized as a science
akasaart 2 years ago 3
I believe the thesis but the song isn't funny
DeadJerker 2 years ago
pirbird: So medicine isn't a science, right? I mean, no two humans (or samples from any species) are identical, so you can't replicate the results.
Yes, social sciences by and large can't provide inviolable laws. They can't say "This vowel shift will occur in the next decade". But they can say "When this vowel shifts, it will shift to a 'ee' (85% probability.) or an "ih" (12%)
Social sciences are, true, currently full of dogma and pseudoscience but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Crabjesus 2 years ago
I read an essay, about 40 years ago, which called socisl sciences the new Black Arts. Still, you may be right. Goog things did eventually come from astrology and alchemy.
jjdkii 2 years ago
Alchemy at least is fairly apt (and probably even more so 40 years ago): they're fields which are to a greater or lesser degree suffering from untested theories from armchair workers being taken as gospel, but moving towards a more accurate system.
However, it's rather unfair to lump all the social sciences together: for example, psychology and linguistics are both far more rigorous than economics (fuck, let's face it, most of the time psychology is more rigorous than pharmacology)
Crabjesus 2 years ago 2
human behavior is kind of predictable, results may vary therefore
nirvgardengod 2 years ago 2
Actually human behavior is very predictable, particularly when people get desperate.
formless777 1 year ago
Wow! Another lost Lehrer classic! And the second time he's inspired by a song originally sung by Danny Kaye ("Lobachevsky" was inspired by Kaye's "Stanislovsky")! Thanks for posting!
Elric33239 2 years ago
durp?
harpooned 2 years ago
Everybody!Everybody look at the scare quotes in Rubens post...tut tut...typical of an major.
mongafied83 2 years ago
The full proof will be posted elsewhere but that is a classic simple proof Ruben. Tom your a genius.
alienpresence 2 years ago
Sociology isn't all about numbers, matrices and statistics. Quantitative research methods are but one part of a much broader spectrum of ways to give scientific explenations to social acts.
But what's really at stake here is the question when one could define something as scientific. If science is the quest for invariable laws, then one could say that sociology is less scientific then for example physics. But in my opinion, 'science' is much broader then such an nomothetic interpretation.
RubenB1234 2 years ago
It does oppose Mr Lehrer's argument, but the handy definition I picked up somewhere is, "If you can't measure it, it ain't science."
HardLovinLoser 2 years ago 4
That is indeed one way to look at science, but I find that a very narrow definition
But ofcourse, if you want to look at science in that way, then that is your good right. And of course that's also the good right of Mr. Lehrer.
But I want to point out to you that mainstream sociology is very keen on measuring. Most sociologists measure certain attributes and try to formulate laws on the statistical results of these measurements. So in that way, with your definition, sociology is science.
RubenB1234 2 years ago
Science also requires experimentation, with replicable results. There are two problems here for the social sciences:
1. The things being measured are intangible, being human attitudes, etc. and are therfore inherently unmeasurable;
2. Human beings are not identical; therefore it is not possible to replicate the experiment exactly.
I've worked as a telephone survey interviewer for 5 years. It ain't science.
pirbird14 2 years ago 2
Yup. And science also requires "falsifiability". A lot of alleged "science" ... like "Creation Science" fails miserably there.
frndandlovr 2 years ago
I love when sociologists or economists try to tell physicists and chemists what is science.
Maybe you guys should take a hint: we don't consider you science.
Even this comment reeks of the problem: "...one could say that sociology is less scientific then for example physics." You can't be "less scientific." It is measurably reproduced or it isn't.
enjolraslechimiste 2 years ago 17
@enjolraslechimiste well i do love at least as much when physicists and chemists try to draw conclusions about the society and people when they have no idea about them, concluding that if they live in it, and see it, they know everything about it.
I also adore when they say that there sociology is no science and it is useless when they have no clue about what sociology really is, especially i adore when they are trying to persuade me that they now what sociology is, as they read like 5 studies
frosztmami 8 months ago
@frosztmami I took sociology as a bird course for two years, all i learned was fancy names for common sense occurrences
vladaman1 6 months ago
@enjolraslechimiste oh, and at leasts, when sociologists talk about the "real science" they have theories and researches proving there theories behind them whereas when "real scientists" talk about social studies they usually have nothing
frosztmami 8 months ago
@frosztmami
You don't get it. Real scientists do not claim to have the right answers about social studies, because it's social studies: there are no right answers.
Learn to spell.
enjolraslechimiste 8 months ago
@enjolraslechimiste i'm pretty sure, as i have brain physicist acquittance that they do claim to have right answers about how people work and how people work in groups, and i guess genetics does have some interesting theories as well, not to talk about link theories. And you see, the social constraint to spell right is much less on a community site than for example in a scientific essay, so i don't understand why is it so important for u :).
frosztmami 8 months ago
@frosztmami If one is a brain physicist you can have the logic and technology to establish a theory based on science, if you're a sociologist you just guess -.-
CreepersOnSpeed 7 months ago
@CreepersOnSpeed Seriously? You just guess... What the hell do you guys know about sociology? You probably don't know jack, and you are saying all sorts of BS. Its called a social science, because there is a f***ing scientific method. Its not just guessing, its called a hypothesis, jackass!! Which btw also is done in other sciences. Then you prove your hypothesis with a series of variables and steps you must take. Please don't talk about something you have no fucking idea about.
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 6 months ago
@awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye Awwwww, do you need a lollipop?
CreepersOnSpeed 6 months ago
@CreepersOnSpeed well, I'd definitely be glad if you gave me one, but I'd much prefer if you would learn something out of this... ups sorry, forgot. To learn something you must have a capable and yours... well... yours just isn't up to the task...
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 6 months ago
@CreepersOnSpeed a capable brain... forgot to put the word there.
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 6 months ago
@enjolraslechimiste Let's see you speak Romanian you joke.
Learn to use a colon.
RoundhouseLion 6 months ago
@RoundhouseLion
The colon is used correctly. Nice try, though. And I speak 3 languages fluently, thank you.
enjolraslechimiste 6 months ago
@enjolraslechimiste how in heavens do you know for sure that just because they are social studies there are no right answers. Thats BS. In everything there are exceptions, even in Biology, however that does not mean that there are no right answers. There are behavioral patterns that are found in not all, but most people. If you were to test out whatever theory, like for example, solomon Asch theory of submision, you would find that out of 100 people, at least 95 would prove the theory.
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 6 months ago
@awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye
You're missing the point. This is a statement of the field at large. Physicists, at large, do not claim the answers to questions they obviously cannot answer. Economists love to do this (they love to predict how the economy is going to grow down to the cent...and yet they can't consistently predict the order of magnitude of the growth (or even the sign, sometimes). Same problem here.
enjolraslechimiste 6 months ago
@enjolraslechimiste no, you are the one that is missing the point. You see, true scientists do not make those claims as you have stated, since they know they cannot apply it to the field at large. Just as good Sociologists and good Economists will do. Besides, Aristotle was a scientist and philosopher at his given time, and he said that a thing such as spontaneous generation existed. And it wasn't proven wrong till 19th century. He claimed that that was the right answer. He was scientist.
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 6 months ago
@awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye "He claimed that that was the right answer. He was scientist."
You are saying that because he claimed he was correct he was a scientist. No, you are profoundly ignorant of Aristotle, he was not a scientist in any sense of the word. He was a philosopher, but not a scientist. Social philosophy wasn't really his thing either like Plato, Aristotle was about metaphysics and ethics.
DOHC2L 6 months ago
@DOHC2L well, you see, in 384 BC, phylosophy was the closest thing there was to science... After all everything is born from phylosophy so you could technically call it a science, or the father of science. But even if we categorize him as a philosopher and not a scientist, Spontaneous Generation? A theory created in 350 BC or so... and it wasn't proven wrong till the 19th century-...that's roughly 2000 years.... quite a lot of time... there must have been a scientific background to that.
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 5 months ago
@awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye "well, you see, in 384 BC, phylosophy was the closest thing there was to science... After all everything is born from phylosophy so you could technically call it a science, or the father of science."
No, your reasons are idiotic. The scientific method excludes considerations for using approximation for any reason. Science is exact, philosophy is different. If you truly want to understand these disciplines, don't just guess at them, learn them. And use proper grammar.
DOHC2L 5 months ago
@DOHC2L ok, I admit I made a mistake in the word "philosophy" I'm spanish and I sometimes get mixed up with a couple of words, but we both know all to well that science is not exact... because something exact excludes any type of exception, and unless you have studied sciences in a very weird manner you should know that there are many types of exceptions in all fields of science. Exact is an equivalent of perfection, which is obviously non-existent in this world.
awrtwyfbiyawefgxbiye 5 months ago
@DOHC2L "Science" is the human pursuit of knowledge through observation and reasoning. The scientific method, while an important part of it, does not define science.
Physics, mathematics, and chemistry can be called "hard" sciences because those studying them can work with incredible precision and predictability. Psychology and sociology (and historical sciences) may be called "soft" sciences because they cannot observe their subject matter with such near-perfect systems. But they can [cont'd]
35Chappell 4 months ago
@35Chappell According to your definition of "Science" lots of religions would be considered science.
I recommend revising your definition to include an importance upon the scientific method and, more importantly, the fluidity of science through persuasion of reproducible results.
To add, social sciences have had a hard time justifying themselves as sciences because their outcomes aren't entirely reproducible. Not saying they're not, but they do have trouble being categorized.
battykitto 4 months ago
observe the human mind, social interaction, or historical evidence and, through careful experimentation, better understand the subject. THAT is science.
But yes, the fact remains that psychology and sociology in particular are very "soft" sciences, and their subject matter cannot be perfectly understood. When psychologists and especially sociologists try to assume that their area can be so precise, they come up with a collection of ideas that is distressingly presumptuous.
35Chappell 4 months ago
@DOHC2L Any science student would tell you that science is not exact.(except for mathematics)
11Agamemnon235 4 months ago
@11Agamemnon235 "Any science student would tell you that science is not exact.(except for mathematics)"
But a scientist wouldn't say that. Instead of speculating what other people would say, what do you say? How is science not exact? If something is not exact it must be an approximation. So, how is science not exact, and how is science an approximation? Be sure not to confuse the concepts of theory and hypothesis in your answer. Claims that lack explanation is speculation...
DOHC2L 4 months ago
@DOHC2L My friend, science creates models of nature. Our models are only exact in the sense of their internal workings. In terms of how they apply to actually real world situations, they are, in fact, approximations. Our calculations almost NEVER agree exactlly with experimental observations--they are within a margin of error. Later, when we have a more accurate theory, this margin of error shrinks. In fact, there are a lot of physists who argue that any improvements to the standard model
11Agamemnon235 4 months ago
@11Agamemnon235 would just be an improvement in decimal places. These are therefore, finer and finer approximations. Our expression of scientific theory may be precise, and the calculations within a given one exact, however, in relation to real events, they are not exact. We create spaces in which our manipulations are absolute. These spaces are not nature; nature isn't a mathematical space. Our spaces become more and more representitive of nature as science progresses. What else would you call
11Agamemnon235 4 months ago
@11Agamemnon235 it but approximation? Most scientists are, by the way, pragmatists, myself being one of them. Please do not equate synthetic statements with analytical ones. Science, excluding mathematics, is inductive.
11Agamemnon235 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
social science is cooler then math haha
usmcrecon52 2 years ago
ill agree that it is cooler in that its more popular nowadays but thats not actually a good thing :P
onerichie 2 years ago