Geoffrey MillerVerified account

It has to do with the inability of social scientist to effectively control their experiments. If the theory fails to explain the outcomes, it can be blamed on other variables. It’s not self-correcting.

As a financial analyst, I remember years ago asking myself "wait, am I a fuckin' scientist?" Seems like by the definition, I am. But I would NEVER say so, because 1) saying you're "a scientist" is pretentious as shit, and 2) the majority of science is fake, to sell widgets.

There are methods of inquiry that do not involve the scientific method that can still produce truth But to say that these methods are equivalent is folly

The is so true. Most “social scientists” know that their fields are not as rigorous as real math and science. Calling themselves scientists is a way to get more respect,

some social scientist simply don't look at evidence (that includes some economists).

I can't stand the 'only physics is science' argument, it's so confused. Emergent phenomenon will increasingly be probabilistic and mediated by many variables--that doesn't mean those complex patterns aren't real... It implicitly claims there *can be no* science of these topics...

Ideologies are always right but never true.

Fernando Sor, great 19th Cent composer for guitar, had a comment about true musicians considering music as the "science of sound." Purported scientists would be wise to study guitar and his Twelfth and last maxim: "To hold reasoning for a great deal, and routine for nothing."