just here to rustle jimmies

science

noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

scientist

noun
a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

Masters of Economics here. While it's considered a "social science", the statistics and differential calculus that goes into it can be daunting at times.

Then go back and become a welder. Quit wasting your time.The problem with economics is that you're all Keynesian.

Just lol at miscers who only want to restrict the use of the scientific method to things that are only easily observed.

But who was Marketing, AI, Improving HR (hiring/firing/ employees, creating positive work-life balance, etc), Jury Selection, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, etc.

Brb. To be a Consultant Psychiatrist it takes 12 years of study ...

Pretty much need a degree now to not do manual labor or work at a gas station/fast food restaurant (which I'm not against but don't prefer for a career). It's just all flooded with unnecessary bullshyt - opinionated views they try to force on you and classes that have no relevance to what you actually want to do in the long run, sometimes not even relevant to your major. But like I said, I already have connections and a job offer going the psychology route and it genuinely interests me.

what brah?

Marketing is emotion based primarily. Vertical integration is an application of robotics and automation not a result of marketing.

AI is computer science. <---- Science.

HR is legal studies. Not a science.

Psychology isn't going to open any doors with a base degree.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

Lol not even close. How can you analyze **** if you can't even do basic calc, or have even a rudimentary knowledge of physics/chem. You can't. All you have then is cause = correlation, which anyone that has done any studies in real science classes knows that is not correct.

Interesting link. Thanks brah. Been study economics for 4.5 years now and it's the first time I've heard of this dude.

Totally agree

brb random questionnaire study on 100 "volunteers" (mom and pop of every student)
brb test 20 random hypothesis
brb 1 surprise result with p=0.05 significance NO **** SHERLOCK

phd in civil engineering master race checking in

The use of the word theory is a huge problem. Theory means something entirely different in real science. In the social sciences they use the word theory when they should be using the term hypothesis.

recently graduated biochemist checking in. STEM or gtfo

Lol, I take it you just finished your first semester in college with a solid B- in physics w/ calc 1 and now think you possess a scientific mind. How can you be so narrow minded? The lines between science, art, and philosophy aren't as clear cut as you think they are.

What does art have to do with this topic?

Yes there are clear cut lines between science and bull****. Quit trying to act like your **** major is a science. It's not.

Everything. Music, for instance, is a science in some respects. Music theory is a scientific model by which we explain the human phenomenon of music. It is a quantitative structure.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but my major is chemistry. Minoring in physics as well.

No. The scientific method creates a musical theory model that explains what general populations of individuals prefer which is a interesting phenomenon of music.

It is a qualitative structure.

Yup. Acoustics would be the hard science version.

>Be a social science major
>If I strum a string on a guitar a sound is made
>No understanding of pressure waves
>No understanding of periodicity
>No understanding of sine/cosine
>Pretends to be a science despite not knowing those basics

INTJ - Christian

Philippians 4:13 - I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

I can see you know all about science OP

Even if it was strictly qualitative, which it is not, that wouldn't mean it is inherently unscientific.

Lots of things in science can be explained qualitatively. Take simple acid/base concepts in chemistry. If the conjugate base of an acid is more polarizable, then the acid is generally stronger. This concept can be explained quantitatively, but qualitative explanations do it justice as well. If the conjugate base is larger, it can diffuse electron density over a greater area and is consequently more polarizable and consequently more stable.

And what about your periodic trends?



This is a QUALITATIVE diagram.

Quantitative explanations are conducive to understanding physical phenomena, but much of our understanding of science can be derived intuitively and qualitatively. By limiting your idea of science to mathematical/numerical fields, you limit your understanding of it. It is a PROCESS. It is not strictly a numerical way of doing things.

Alright - let us take this philosophical gesture to a more physical level. How would you quantify "successful" music?

I don't understand what you're asking. Do you mean to ask how I would quantitatively explain what makes a hit song?

I don't really care what you call "success" in this example. Success means a lot to a lot of people and is totally subjective. Pick something and explain why it is successful and quantify it. The goal here is to find something diametrically opposed which is just as successful. Music is so broad I am sure I can find an opposing view.

I don't see how quantifying music would be conducive to my argument that qualitative understanding is essential to science. I think we're getting off base here. I don't want to argue whether science is quantitative or qualitative because it can be either.

All I intend to argue in this thread is that science is simply a process of empirical learning. You don't have to have an in depth understanding of calculus/physics/chemistry/whatever in order to know that you must collect data to substantiate your reasoning. The statement "If your major does not include taking calc/chem/physics, it is NOT a science" is flawed because it is based on the presumption that science is strictly limited to those fields. People were conducting scientific experiments before calculus was even invented. When Galileo dropped two objects of different masses from the Tower of Pisa and concluded that their time of descent was independent of their mass, he was conducting a scientific experiment. He didn't have to know kinematic equations, understand forces, know the acceleration due to gravity, or (gasp) even take a class at a modern university to know what he was doing. He used his intuitive ability as a human to make a guess and test it. That is what science is. It is deriving conclusions from repeated observation. Quantitative understanding is helpful and even essential in some cases, but not always.

i just LOL at them thinking they are part of the STEM master race and will be able to get jobs post graduation. Breaking news: Science Majors in Psychology still end up at starbucks