But they don’t. How interactions between physical objects and forces is observed and understood is completely different to what makes a valid syllogism. The nature of the methods used in science is not itself a scientific but a philosophical. Historians and philosophers are not scientists, and none the worse for not being so. — Wayfarer
An argument for a distinction between historians and scientists is yet to be made in this thread — Johnnie
An argument for a distinction between historians and scientists is yet to be made in this thread. — Johnnie
The scientific status of psychology and the social sciences is often called into question because they are not so amenable to the kinds of certainty that characterise the so-called 'hard sciences'. — Wayfarer
Why do you think that? — wonderer1
https://www.nu.edu/blog/ask-an-expert-can-human-behavior-be-studied-scientifically/
Ask an Expert: Can Human Behavior Be Studied Scientifically?
But even if the answer to our initial question, “Can human behavior be studied scientifically,” is yes, that doesn’t imply it can be studied easily.
With human behavior experiments being so difficult to design, Jenkins cautions that the quest for measurability can risk steering research efforts down paths that are less than rigorous.
Even more challenging to the test designer, Jenkins adds, is to remember that taking a test is itself a behavior. This means that tests need to try to take into account the attitudes of test takers while they are taking the test.
This means some people may answer questions based on how they want to be perceived, rather than how they truly are.
One of the most difficult hurdles for researchers observing human behavior is how to deal with the reality that human test subjects are always aware they are being studied and can modify their behavior—purposely or unconsciously—in response.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all non-trivial semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A semantic property is one about the program's behavior (for instance, "does the program terminate for all inputs?"), unlike a syntactic property (for instance, "does the program contain an if-then-else statement?").
It implies that it is impossible, for example, to implement a tool that checks whether a given program is correct, or even executes without error.
And I think the assumption that scientific method generally assumes physicalist reductionism is a pretty safe, even if there are those who dissent from it or question it. The scientific status of psychology and the social sciences is often called into question — Wayfarer
The difference can be found in the justification report for the claim they are making. A historian will supply a collection of scrutinized and corroborated witness depositions while the scientist will provide an experimental test report.
The scientist must be able to control the observations recorded while that is pretty much impossible for the historian. He cannot just go to the lab and repeat the Battle of Hastings all over again. — Tarskian
But even if the answer to our initial question, “Can human behavior be studied scientifically,” is yes, that doesn’t imply it can be studied easily.
A historian can go into ground and look for artifacts, his claims are falsifiable. — Johnnie
It's not even explicit that a ethanol molecule is a straight-forward sum of parts. — Johnnie
The same a historian, he comes up with a causal mechanism and looks to disprove it which is much harder because the event was singular in the past. But he still has some tools of falsifying his claims in principle. — Johnnie
I have always thought of it as much more complicated than that. Something along the following lines:-Archaeologist. That is a science. — I like sushi
(That is actually a quotation, which I give because it saves me time and effort. I haven't given the source because authority is irrelevant, so it would be a distraction from what matters here.)Archaeology is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. ... Archaeology can be considered both a social science and a branch of the humanities. It is usually considered an independent academic discipline, but may also be classified as part of anthropology, history or geography.
This is not wrong, of course. But the use of the phrase "causal mechanism" here is an example of what happens when we get hypnotized by physics. Either questions about human behaviour are being pressed into the mould of what is appropriate for answering the questions of physics. Or the idea of a causal mechanism is being stretched to cover kinds of explanation that physics is designed to exclude. Either way, it is not helpful.he comes up with a causal mechanism and looks to disprove it which is much harder because the event was singular in the past — Johnnie
It depends what you mean by "scientifically". If your paradigm of science is physics, then the answer will be that you can, provided you give the kind of answer that physics requires. But that kind of answer is not available in mathematics, so the paradigm is a bit embarrassing. You need to broaden your scope to allow different ways of studying things, without worrying so much about physics or even, perhaps, what is to count as scientific.“Can human behavior be studied scientifically,"
Astronomy seems to be a purely observational discipline, though tests are indeed possible by means of prediction. It's just that experimental tests are not possible.Falsifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for science. It must also be possible to experimentally test the falsifiable hypothesis. — Tarskian
I have always thought of it as much more complicated than that. — Ludwig V
That's true. The complication is this. For periods and places where there are no contemporary text sources, there is no other source than archaeology. Where both archaeology and texts are available, the two overlap, collaborate, and supplement each other. So I would want to say that where both are available, it is not important to distinguish between them, except in respect of the objects of study - differences in method are just the consequence of that. Both aim to tell a story of what happened.Historians deal with the written word. I was pointing out this clear distinction as whoever posted what they need seemed to think historians were archaeologists. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they operate on completely different levels of investigation and data collection. — I like sushi
It is possible that the prediction of the behaviour of organic molecules using hard physics is not computable, just like the behaviour of a human stomach can't be predicted using hard physics, even if we accept that we live in a purely physicalistic universe that regularly obeys the fundamental laws of physics at every level. — Lionino
Even more challenging to the test designer, Jenkins adds, is to remember that taking a test is itself a behavior. This means that tests need to try to take into account the attitudes of test takers while they are taking the test.
This means some people may answer questions based on how they want to be perceived, rather than how they truly are.
One of the most difficult hurdles for researchers observing human behavior is how to deal with the reality that human test subjects are always aware they are being studied and can modify their behavior—purposely or unconsciously—in response. — "Tarskian
There are fields that are an tightly meshed combination of both, such as architecture. A good number of architectural rules have been experimentally tested for safety. Still, subjective aesthetics have always been a major consideration in the construction of new buildings. The same can be said about the design of cars or any consumer product. — Tarskian
That's right.
For millennia, humans have understood that buildings should be practical, beautiful, and sustainable, because if any of these qualities are omitted or prioritized the buildings become practical but not beautiful, or beautiful but unsustainable, or sustainable but regardless of how. — jkop
There's no causal relation between the aesthetics and the sustainability and the practical reason for solar panels.
— jkop
Does such a causal relation exist? — ucarr
Yes, in the sense that architecture causally emerges from the building's practical, aesthetical, and sustainable qualities. — jkop
So, one possible summit of a science-art mesh would be a building that's useful, ecological and beautiful. — ucarr
Yeah, those three (or closely related varieties of each) are the essential components of all successful structural designs. Also known as the Vitruvian Triad.
When the sciences divorced the humanities, many intellectuals (e.g. Schopenhauer) became reluctant to see architecture as an art. It just seemed too pragmatic, concerned with functions etc. — jkop
I agree. I was trying to outline an idea and left that point out for simplicity. Once you start looking, there are a good many disciplines that need to combine and mesh rationales and causal accounts. Indeed, the two are both useful in the ordinary, "common sense" explanations of actions. Though, admittedly, we appeal to causal explanations most often, I think, when something has gone wrong. Some actions are habits, which tremble on the brink of addictions. But addictions are not purely causal, since an addict is perfectly capable of rational action; it's just that the values that are prioritized are incomprehensible to us - no, that's the wrong word.However, the distinction is not a simple binary, b&w polarization, and so the two modes can sometimes be made to work side-by-side. — ucarr
Yes, you've said that before. But I don't really understand what you mean. Are you getting at what I would call levels of description? So, for example, a person is a human being (animal), a body (biology), a corpse (physics). Another example would be walking down a street as exercising or getting in the beer or starting a journey of 1000 miles. To me, adverbial modification means walking purposefully, or ambling or wandering or limping. But you might mean that interpretation is much more important in humanities disciplines than in the sciences. (Actually, I wouldn't take it for granted that physics means the same thing by "interpreting the evidence" as a historian does.)Discovery of "how" is rooted in the adverbial modification of the predication of the fact of existing things. — ucarr
That's true, but it's not all always about what's conscious. Tacit knowledge is one example. The sub- or un-conscious seems to be a real thing. And there's all the process of data from the senses, which clearly enables consciousness, though it isn't available to consciousness.To the main point, "how" drags [personal] consciousness into the frame of the lens of discovery. — ucarr
That's true, and we might learn a lot by seeing how such fields cope. Sometimes, I get the impression that they simply ignore the distinction, which sounds impossible, and yet, perhaps, it may be.There are fields that are an tightly meshed combination of both, — Tarskian
I don't quite understand "causally" here. Surely, any building "consists" of practical, sustainable, aesthetic qualities among others; architecture is the art of combining them to meet various criteria. There needs to be a discussion about aesthetics that gets over the crude observation that aesthetics is "subjective" meaning that there can be no meaningful way of understanding aesthetic qualities. There are mathematical techniques for turning subjective opinions into data, but they are only a beginning. The traditional ideas that there are certain proportions of buildings that make them beautiful are another approach.Yes, in the sense that architecture causally emerges from the building's practical, aesthetical, and sustainable qualities — jkop
That may be true. I would hope it was more a matter of focus, of attending only to the context that is relevant to the task at hand.Maybe a lesson here is that reductionism can be a good tactical maneuver while the researcher is in the thick of the hunt for discovery - — ucarr
Discovery of "how" is rooted in the adverbial modification of the predication of the fact of existing things. — ucarr
...I don't really understand what you mean. — Ludwig V
To me, adverbial modification means walking purposefully, or ambling or wandering or limping. But you might mean that interpretation is... — Ludwig V
I don't quite understand "causally" here. — Ludwig V
The traditional ideas that there are certain proportions of buildings that make them beautiful are another approach. — Ludwig V
Science is what you study to get a high salary job. The Humanities (and the Arts) is what you spend your high salary on. — LuckyR
But, in the end, everything is related to everything. The test of Cognitive Archaeology is what it produces. There's no true or false here, only pragmatics (where the criterion is not the useful, or even the true, but only the interesting or profitable.) The issue I skated over is that subject divisions are not only about subject-matter and methodology, but also about practicalities and administrative convenience.If you go down that road then everything relates to everything. Colin Renfrew is a pioneer in Cognitive Archaeology, for example. — I like sushi
"utility, beauty, and sustainability", I would say are not components of the building, but aspects (properties) of the whole. So I agree with your sentiment, but am inclined to think that "causal relations" - which implies that they are distinct parts (components) of the whole - is not quite the right way to articulate the point.Architecture consists of its components, but there are causal relations between them and the composition. — jkop
Suddenly, I understand what you are saying. :grin:the adverb reveals how an action is performed by an individual person with his/her unique Point Of View being the adverbial force that determines the "how" of the doing of an action — ucarr
A point of view is an abstract of possible observers and ideal observers; it isn't about actual human beings. History, literature, and some approaches to language are about actual human beings, not abstract concepts. Linguistics is another interesting case that straddles the divide. (Is philosophy included here? Depends on what you mean by philosophy. Much philosophy presupposes an abstract observer, but Wittgenstein, of course, challenged that.) — Ludwig V
“Physicists believe in a “true world” in their own fashion…. But they are in error. The atom they posit is inferred according to the logic of the perspectivism of consciousness—and it is therefore itself a subjective fiction. … And in any case they left something out of the constellation without knowing it: precisely this necessary perspectivism by virtue of which every center of force—and not only man—construes all the rest of the world from its own viewpoint, i.e., measures, feels, forms, according to its own force— They forgot to include this perspective-setting force in “true being”—in school language: the subject.”(The Will to Power)
“The essence of value lies in its being a point-of-view. Value means that upon which the eye is fixed. Value means that which is in view for a seeing that aims at something or that, as we say, reckons upon something and therewith must reckon with something else. Value stands in intimate relation to a so-much, to quantity and number. Hence values are related to a "numerical and mensural scale" (Will to Power, Aph. 710, 1888)
“Through the characterization of value as a point-of-view there results the one consideration that is for Nietzsche's concept of value essential : as a point-of-view, value is posited at any given time by a seeing and for a seeing. This seeing is of such a kind that it sees inasmuch as it has seen, and that it has seen inasmuch as it has set before itself and thus posited what is sighted, as a particular something. It is only through this positing which is a representing that the point that is necessary for directing the gaze toward something, and that in this way guides the path of sight, becomes the aim in view-i.e., becomes that which matters in all seeing and in all action guided by sight…All being whatever is a putting forward or setting forth.
What has changed is that nowadays, one needs to know about science in order to be a decent citizen of a civilized society. — Ludwig V
As if.... !Don’t forget Nietzsche here.…and Heidegger’s interpretation of Nietzsche: — Joshs
I'm sure there has, but that it is more a question of degree than have/havenot distinction. In the context of education policy, there are three questions:-I can generally agree with this. I think there has always been a disparity between those with knowhow and those not, but the information age has caused something of a hiccup I feel. — I like sushi
This opens up a huge debate. Bringing up good citizens (let's suppose that this society is at least on some winding pathway towards civilization.) is a complicated and messy business. Formal education, as we understand it, is an important part of that. Don't think that I'm trying to disparage it. But play-time and parenting are important parts as well. Beyond that, I'm very confused. — Ludwig V
History, literature, and some approaches to language are about actual human beings, not abstract concepts — Ludwig V
Is philosophy included here? Depends on what you mean by philosophy. Much philosophy presupposes an abstract observer, but Wittgenstein, of course, challenged that. — Ludwig V
A statement about a fact is not philosophical. For example:
It is raining today.
A statement is philosophical, if it is a statement about another statement. For example:
It is irrelevant that it is raining today.
This explains in simple words what the true meaning is of Godel's incompleteness theorem.
A theory is incomplete if it can express statements about its own statements. In other words, a theory is incomplete if it is capable of philosophy.
Self-referential statements are just a special case of the general case, which is the philosophical statement. If a statement can talk about other statements, then it can also talk about itself. — Tarskian
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.