Also, anti-science social scientists like to claim vaguely that all bad ideas were natural science when actually many were social science.https://twitter.com/christianjbdev/status/851812545681915907 …
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
If you look at eg the history of scientific racism you find a lot of anthropologists, sociologists & philosophers not being very scientific
2 replies 10 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
You get a lot of biologists & physicians too, obv, and its only comparatively recently that the disciplines have distinguished themselves.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
So, it can be hard to tell in the 19th century what ppl were actually doing &identify individuals as natural scientists or social scientists
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
They certainly called it 'science' a lot but I'm not sure we'd recognise it as such now. Emile Zola considered himself to be doing science.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
He saw his novels as an experiment in which he'd place characters & see what they did & then draw conclusions abt human nature from this.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Of course, scientists looked askance at this claim even then.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
But I haven't studied 19th century history since undergrad so am limited. But there was a definite tendency to ascribe bad ideas to science.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
When often what ppl were doing was observing grps in society &coming up with moralistic ideas abt race & gender which is more social science
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Their conclusions not today's social scientists' fault but neither do they get to dump all the bad stuff at the door of science & blame it.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.