gualudengren comments on Turned red after finding out that

Turned red after finding out that (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by Tolc@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml

297 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (19 children)

Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science.

That's great but you said:

"there is no legitimate social sciences."

Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it's broken into subfields.

As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is:

A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.

Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you're probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn't do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate.

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (18 children)

There isn't, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn't a single social science but rather many sciences that don't amount to society when you add them together.

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (17 children)

First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field.

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (16 children)

Holy shit you're either playing daft and are tedious or you're tedious and daft. When it's worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences.

If that's your deductive prowess on display it's no wonder you seen confused.

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (15 children)

Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn't perfect in my fourth language your majesty I'll try do better in the future /s

The fact is you're wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it's subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] marcie@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s

😆

parent

[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (13 children)

Daft isn't ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh?

Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn't possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that's daft and tedious, you could have just said so.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is.

Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn't make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn't however ableist that's just crybaby bullshit you're using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation.

Quite literally the exact reason it's not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You're implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn't likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn't a thing.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation.

Calling someone crazy or deranged is absolutely ableist. The only one here trying to change the conversation is you.

You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume

Entirely not what I said, like completely not even in the same area of anything I said genuinely impressive strawman building.

I wonder what you call the field to which the sub fields you call social sciences might belong, it couldn't possibly be called social science as an umbrella term?!?!?!

You are unintelligent, uninformed and massively arrogant. You clearly have never interacted with or contributed anything to the scientific community and it really shows. Please take some time to reflect instead of continuing to be a debatepervert.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It doesn't solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn't make it ableist bud.

That's absolutely your implication hence the word imply.

It's not, there's natural science, social sciences and humanities.

So far you've proved nuh uh and the same attitude and arrogance, calm down there pot.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

It doesn’t solely mean crazy or deranged, it can also mean plain stupid. Take a crack at which I meant. Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud.

Yes it does bud. You are a an albeist asshole and should be ashamed of yourself.

That’s absolutely your implication hence the word imply.

But it wasn't it was a straw man not even in the same area of thought of anything I said.

It’s not, there’s natural science, social sciences and humanities.

I wish I could be as confident as you in just saying shit it really is a skill for the privileged.

Pot

See the difference between us is I have interacted with and contributed to the scientific community through my PhD and time as a researcher at a university whereas you given everything I've seen most likely didn't make it past mandatory schooling. You reek of YouTube university educated stemlord.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

No it doesn't, use a dictionary. It's not ableist you're just exceptionally thin skinned it seems. Stay away from Europe bud, that's about the tamest informal you're likely to hear.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/daft

Its exactly what you implied you're just aware now that it makes very little sense.

Like reading rainbow said confidence is a book away, maybe try that dictionary first. Hint hint it's the tab with the big d on it.

Oh you're funny assuming I haven't and an Internet phd is usually bullshit but do go on establishing yourself as a self proclaimed expert in the field rather then provide literally any evidence or doing any research let alone looking up a word before crying about it for the better part of a day.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago

I was very clearly responding to

Similarly that still doesn’t make it ableist bud.

Hence ending that particular sentence in bud not your attempt to weasel out of using ableist language as everyone knows thats bullshit. Daft could have 10,000 other definitions but everyone knows which you meant before you were called out. Trying to shrodingers bigot yourself has never worked for anyone.

It's not at all what I implied and the fact you keep doubling down on this ridiculous strawman is what really makes no sense.

Yeah again were speaking English because it's your language you couldn't even speak to me in any of my more native languages so condescending about it is silly.

It's an educated guess given how you talk about what is and isn't science it's the kind of attitude that would get you laughed out of a lab until you fixed your attitude. It's the attitude of someone who watches science videos or has interest in some field of science like astronomy or astrophysics but has never actually studied it instead watching edutainment about it.

I wasn't crying about anything simply pointing it out and the fact that instead of simply apologising and moving on you felt the need to double triple and quadruple down just shows the kind of person you really are.

parent

[–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

There is no natural science.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] doben@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Add all of those together and it still doesn't equal nature hence natural sciences not natural science.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That's why people started referring to natural science as empirical science, you're not making the point you think you are because that's a sticking point in science.

It's just been referred to as "natural ___" since like 3000bc or something crazy like that, it'll take a minute to break the habit.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] doben@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

Please stop arguing about shit you have no clue of by making shit up while you go.

Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best.

You lost the argument up there.
How do you measure the weight of morals? What happens if you leave the dimension of mere opinion? Please do not answer.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago

Ya huh, please stop making generalizations with no example and honestly no substance.

By jury generally.

The question isn't are they opinions it's do they have weight the answer is obviously yes hence the scales of justice. The only people who tend to wave away morality as opinion are usually not the good guys.

parent