FYI: Linguistics is a science - not a social science.

[ainster31]

I figured I'd let you know.

 

[Evo]

Linguistics does fall under social science. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. There can be a cognitive science aspect, but overall, it falls under social science.

Linguistics, the systematic study of human language, lies at the crossroads of the humanities and the social sciences.

http://linguistics.cornell.edu/undergraduate/what_is_linguistics.cfm

 

[ainster31]

Linguistics does fall under social science. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. There can be a cognitive science aspect, but overall, it falls under social science.



http://linguistics.cornell.edu/undergraduate/what_is_linguistics.cfm

Ah, it seems you're right. I saw "scientific study of language" in Wikipedia and thought it was a science.

 

[Evo]

If you want, you can point out that "psychology" is listed under "Medical Science" when it's actually a "social science".

 

[AlephZero]

...the crossroads of the humanities and the social sciences.

That sounds like a place you really really don't want to go to, unless you are playing a victim in a horror movie

 

[Evo]

That sounds like a place you really really don't want to go to, unless you are playing a victim in a horror movie

:tongue: It was a dark and scary night, I was at the crossroads of humanities and sociology, and an unshakeable feeling of dread overcame me...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Social sciences are still sciences, the clue is in the name.

 

[AlephZero]

Social sciences are still sciences, the clue is in the name.

Yes, in the sense that "creative accounting" is about being creative.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, in the sense that "creative accounting" is about being creative.

Are you suggesting that the social sciences should not be considered science? As they involve the collection of data and the formation and testing of hypotheses I can't see how anyone cod make that claim. Sure it's far easier to conduct an experiment in the natural sciences but that's no reason to discount them altogether. A lot of SS work is incredibly stringent with a high utility.

 

[Enigman]

*Expansion and Increasing Diversification of the Universe of Social Science.*Overcoming ‘Physics Envy’-NYTimes

 

[AlephZero]

Are you suggesting that the social sciences should not be considered science?

That's not what I wrote. But I am suggesting that your argument "X is a science, because it's name contains the word 'science' " is nonsense.

If you disagree, convince me that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science is a science.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's not what I wrote. But I am suggesting that your argument "X is a science, because it's name contains the word 'science' " is nonsense.

If you disagree, convince me that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science is a science.

Ah I see. I was being flippant in my first post, not literally arguing that names are the be all and end all.

 

[Enigman]

So everyone's being flippant except me? Anyway I don't know about cods* but some social scientists in the field itself are making that claim.
There is No Such Thing as a Social Science: In Defence of Peter Winch

*Yes, I am being funny.