A lot of Science isn't science. The scientific method requires you to isolate variables. There are fields where it is physically impossible for us to do that, such as economics and social science. It might be possible that we figure out climate stuff, but right now we just make shit up until we can solve some really hard problems like turbulent flow.
I agree. That's why co-opting science as the framework through which all things should be evaluated was so destructive.
Science only really works in very specific fields of inquiry. Beyond those the scientific method, which is what makes science such a powerful tool, doesn't work.
But the connection has already been made. The bait and switch has been accepted at every level of society. To deny a study in, for example, sociology, is the same as denying gravity. The explanatory power of what is now considered science has decreased, but we still act like it's pure rigor and scientific method.
The scientific method requires you to isolate variables. There are fields where it is physically impossible for us to do that, such as economics and social science.
The amount of time I spent in Psychology working with null hypothesis and biological indicators of mental phenomenon says that is isn't impossible by any means.
The field is just so corrupt it doesn't put in the effort to need to. Nearly all of social science is debt ridden and desperate, and will write a study that says whatever you want it to to get funding from some random corporation. The field makes zero money, so it prostitutes itself to social engineers to survive and then they use it for whatever.
There is also the problem of lacking the technology to properly study the brain of a living human (they aren't so useful dead). A lot of right now is trying to figure out modern problems with renaissance level tools. Its hard to properly conduct research when you have only a subjective tool reporting to you what it thinks it thinks.
Have you read Human Action? Mises really needed someone like Bernays to help him make better terms. Praxeology is a terrible word choice. Economics is axiomatic, like logic or math, instead of empirical, like physics or biology.
It is physically impossible to repeat any social science expermient. You can never get the same people back in the same room under the same conditions without access to the new information they have gained since the first time. I'd recommend you pick up Human Action, since it is the foundation of modern classical liberalism.
A lot of Science isn't science. The scientific method requires you to isolate variables. There are fields where it is physically impossible for us to do that, such as economics and social science. It might be possible that we figure out climate stuff, but right now we just make shit up until we can solve some really hard problems like turbulent flow.
I agree. That's why co-opting science as the framework through which all things should be evaluated was so destructive.
Science only really works in very specific fields of inquiry. Beyond those the scientific method, which is what makes science such a powerful tool, doesn't work.
But the connection has already been made. The bait and switch has been accepted at every level of society. To deny a study in, for example, sociology, is the same as denying gravity. The explanatory power of what is now considered science has decreased, but we still act like it's pure rigor and scientific method.
The amount of time I spent in Psychology working with null hypothesis and biological indicators of mental phenomenon says that is isn't impossible by any means.
The field is just so corrupt it doesn't put in the effort to need to. Nearly all of social science is debt ridden and desperate, and will write a study that says whatever you want it to to get funding from some random corporation. The field makes zero money, so it prostitutes itself to social engineers to survive and then they use it for whatever.
There is also the problem of lacking the technology to properly study the brain of a living human (they aren't so useful dead). A lot of right now is trying to figure out modern problems with renaissance level tools. Its hard to properly conduct research when you have only a subjective tool reporting to you what it thinks it thinks.
Have you read Human Action? Mises really needed someone like Bernays to help him make better terms. Praxeology is a terrible word choice. Economics is axiomatic, like logic or math, instead of empirical, like physics or biology.
I'll say in economics I am not deeply versed. My point was entirely in defense of the social sciences.
But I am much in the camp of nature being highly triumphant over nurture, so Praxeology would be a major disagreement with me.
It is physically impossible to repeat any social science expermient. You can never get the same people back in the same room under the same conditions without access to the new information they have gained since the first time. I'd recommend you pick up Human Action, since it is the foundation of modern classical liberalism.