I'm thinking mostly about focus of study. Looking at the way ppl think culturally & the way they think scientifically is very different.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @JCMaas
I'm certainly interested in cognitive mechanisms underlying it but I'm more interested in language & attitudes & ideology affecting culture.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @JCMaas
These can certainly be measured scientifically but this, to me,is less interesting than trying to understand how it all works in ppl's minds
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
This is mostly about definitions, but I pers. don't see why that shouldn't be called science. If your ideas are falsifiable, it's science.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JCMaas
They're not falsifiable & making them so is not the point. One of my professors & her husband is making a database of phrases in manuscripts
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @JCMaas
Then people will be able to search and find how commonly things were being talked about. Much more data at our fingertips.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @JCMaas
That's science. I'm more interested in pulling out attitudes and making convincing arguments about their influences & significance.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Those arguments can be convincing because based on something. They can be wrong. If they can't be, its pseudoscience. Else, science.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JCMaas
Yes, if we define science as addressing any argument which can be right or wrong but I feel this misses the essence.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Apart from method (qualitative vs quantitative), what 'essence' are you talking about? In the end its all about growth of knowledge.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.