It seems cruel to say that most social sciences are jokes and most social scientists are clowns, but that’s really the sad and painful, even heartbreaking, truth.
Generally speaking, most social scientists are not even practicing science anyway. They just say they are. I do not know what they are practicing. Maybe politics, ideology or propaganda. Most social scientists are ideologues of some sort or another. It’s pretty hard to find a rational. And what is stunning about these social scientist retards is that they are always going on and on about,
“Our science has proved this! Our science has proved that! You’re anti-scientific!”
They are always accusing their ideological opponents of not practicing science. This is usually done by taking apart their opponents’ work in petty ways with a fine tooth comb and searching for any error that they might find.
All scholarship has errors or at least is saying things that are either false now or will be proven false later. And your typical scholar doesn’t know everything. He usually doesn’t even know everything about his own field, though your typical social scientist retard always claims he does. Because it’s pretty much impossible to even get a grasp on the totality of facts even in your own petty subfield, everyone’s scholarship is wrong in some way or another simply because it’s impossible to know everything about the subject.
So you have laughable nonscientists who claim to be practicing science screaming at their opponents that the opponents are not practicing science and therefore the opponents’ conclusions are wrong.
Pretty much two sets of morons, each practicing nonscience but calling it science, screaming at each other, claiming to be upholding science and screaming at their opponents for being incompetent, unreliable or unscientific. If one error is found in an opponent’s paper, this means we need to throw out the whole thing. You often hear people say about even widely published scholars,
“This guy is unreliable. I doubt if you will find even one factual sentence in anything he writes, even a 500-page book.”
In this way, they completely dismiss their opponents and often even refuse to read their work, effectively boycotting them.
Everyone who has not hyperspecialized is called a dilettante because you can only be a scholar on one idiotic hyperspecialized microfield. Beyond that, it’s assumed that you know nothing, and everything you say is wrong. The Renaissance Man is dead, buried long ago and no longer even mourned. Instead, absurdly, his death is celebrated as a victory for science and truth! The words dilettante and amateur get thrown around a lot at even widely published ideological opponents.
Everyone on one side of the debate will line up on one side and robotically recite all of the charges of his side, rarely if ever questioning even one of them because if you do, you are now not with us, the good guys, you are with our ideological opponents who are if not evil (and often they are called evil) are at least utterly incompetent and not even worthy of being read.
So there is profound ideological conformity on both sides. You have two groups of antiscientific ideological fucktards screaming at each other and accusing the other one of not practicing science, when honestly, probably neither side is practicing science, so any such charge is hypocritical.
Petty feuds are everywhere. Scholar A will not speak to scholar B and hates his guts. A good number of scholars probably hate each other, but they run around all the time pretending that they don’t because hatred is “unscientific.”
Unanswered emails are common, and so are unanswered phone calls are probably too, but I have not experienced that yet. Many scholars get a huge head, use the excuse of being busy all the time to ignore their emails and screen all their phone calls. There are quite a few scholars who simply cannot be reached ever for any reason short of finding out their office hours and showing up. Screening out all your calls and emails is the sign of an open mind, it is not?</sarcasm>.
Worst of all is that every field has a list of things that have been “proven as facts” in that field. In the real sciences, these facts have actually been proven so at least they are facts and at least true for now, I will grant them that. But then even in the real sciences, these sets of facts become set in stone and the question is considered to be conclusively answered for all of time, when really science doesn’t conclude much of anything for all of time, and pretty much everything is supposedly up for grabs, but that’s not really the way it works.
The reigning paradigm gets set in stone in a way, and everyone in the field rigorously or even ferociously defends the paradigm as if it is the proven set of facts for all of time instead just temporary facts as all science is.
Scholars, often in frightening lockstep unison, condemn all attacks on whatever the reigning paradigm is, and the reigning paradigm is often demonstrably and even laughably false anyway, but once a paradigm gets set, the fake open-minded scientist becomes as closed-minded as any religious fanatic.
New data challenging any reigning paradigm (the paradigms are treated nearly the same as revealed works are treated in religions) is viciously attacked or simply dismissed altogether. It is quite common for papers or data attacking a dominant paradigm to be viciously attacked all around the field, with many reviews showing how the conclusion is wrong. Yet few if any of the critics even try to work out the data or even test it out to see if the conclusion even true. They just yell,
“The conclusion is false!”
often without even examining the data in question. Persons challenging paradigms are called antiscientific and are accused of practicing pseudoscience, a word which pretty much has no meaning because scientists change the definition every month or so. Ideally it means conclusions that do not even follow the scientific method at all, but generally it is just means all of the arguments attacking whatever the stupid paradigm of the moment is. Pseudoscience is just the “paradigm-attacking stuff I don’t like.”
As I said, every field has paradigms. Physics envy and all that, but at least the real sciences have paradigms that are by now proved pretty well. But are they the end of the debate as science says every paradigm is? Well of course not! Nevertheless even in the real sciences, paradigms are defended with near-religious faith and a great deal of emotion.
The social sciences of course are so much worse because they aren’t even sciences in the first place! Every social science has a “set of facts” that everyone in the field has to believe. These are the paradigms of that particular field, and they are defended with all of the ferocity that an SJW defends their politics.You are not even allowed to work in that field if you reject one or more paradigms. It is said that that person “doesn’t even accept the basic facts of our field” and hence must be ignored.
There really is no alternative to accepting those paradigms. You might be able to do so quietly, but don’t try to publish anything attacking any of their often-moronic paradigms or you will be sorry.
Moronic is a harsh word. but it’s necessary when discussing social science paradigms. Many social science paradigms are simply (usually PC) “facts” that are accepted by everyone mostly because they are politically correct and not because they are grounded in any facts. Usually there is a grain of truth in there somewhere, but still the paradigms are more about ideology than science. If you examine a lot of these paradigms, they fall apart, often immediately and obviously, and really any commonsense Joe on the street would laugh and say,
“Of course that’s not true!”
The social scientists then yell that the man on the street knows nothing compared to the anointed scientists of the field. Social science often appropriates the real sciences, usually for political and emotional reasons. If any man on the street rejects whatever the latest stupid PC paradigm is, the social scientists will appropriate real science and argue, for instance, that no way does the man on the street know more about astronomy than astronomers.
But we aren’t talking about real sciences. We are talking about the PC fake sciences called social sciences. So you can see that social scientists throw themselves in with the real scientists and marry their field to the real scientists’ one whenever it is convenient for them.
Nevertheless, social scientists spend a good amount of time engaging in sheer nihilism. Since social sciences typically involve humans, the excuse is made that humans are endlessly variable, and there is no way to control for all of these variables, hence apparently no non-physical scientific conclusions can be made about humans at all! If you try to formulate one, social scientists will jump up and yell about the exceptions. Yet of course exceptions prove the rule even in the real sciences, say in medicine.
So the social scientist frequently answers most of the major questions someone might have about the field with either a regimented and evangelical recitation of whatever the typically unproven paradigms are, or for many questions, the social scientists simply utilizes nihilism and says that this is a question that cannot be answered by our field.
What’s a question that can’t be answered? Well, just about anything is! So when presented with a set of questions about what the field has proven about this or that, the social scientist simply spends a lot of time stating,
“There is no way to test that. There is no way to design such a test ever. But what about the exceptions – because of exceptions, we can never prove anything about anyone. All conclusions are based on averages and how do you know the average is even correct? Maybe it is totally wrong!
Because you can never test out all humans on this question or that, everything disliked is thrown out by attacking sample size or method. And even if you could test out every human on Earth on this question or that, any conclusion that overthrew any paradigm would be tossed out anyway by attacking method.
Also it really doesn’t matter how rigorously you design your experiments and how carefully you your average out your conclusions because they will just attack study design anyway if it attacks a paradigm. The person being attacked then asks in exasperation,
“Well then how to we design such a study to test out this question?”
Of course, asking sociologists or politicians to correctly answer any scientific question is a dubious endeavor, as most conclusions there are simply arrived via arbitrary, often nonsensical, hypocritical, ridiculous and ferociously antiscientific methods which are then explained away as “politics.” Well you know politics is mostly just people lying about one thing or another for ideological reasons, so the “political” conclusions arrived at are usually laughable because there is no science going on whatsoever. Instead there’s just emotionalism and bullshit.
Saying this question or that cannot be answered by our field (who ought to be the ones at least testing it out) is really just a big dodge.
As you can see, the field typically says that the question incredibly has no answer or they say even more wildly that it is a question that cannot even be tested in their first place! Of course, philosophically speaking, there are no questions that lack answers, so this is just another one of their lies. Sure, there are questions that don’t have answers yet that have been determined by humans, but I assure you that there is some scientific answer to the question, but it’s often one that is difficult for humans to figure out, so humans just throw up their hands and say,
“There is no way to determine this one way or other,”
which is something social scientists say a lot.
Emotions run wild in the social sciences. While scientists are supposed to be emotionally constrained at least in their published statements, social scientists seem to be a lot less controlled, and language in debates is often excessively harsh for proper scientific debate, but as no one is practicing science anyway, who cares!
As you can see, most social sciences are absurd endeavors because they don’t even bother to answer most of the important questions in the field which will be defended with,
“We don’t know. We can’t figure that out. There is no way to determine that,”
to half the questions in the field.
Still, I would argue that it’s possible to do some adequate scientific work in most social sciences, even if most of your colleagues accuse you of trying to answer unanswerable questions. Sure there are no hard facts as in physics or math, but there are a lot of things that are “more or less true” where some sort of a vague answer to the question seems to be the best explanation of the facts.