No, natural science can use mathematics to back up their assertions, whereas social science has only words. Social science has been claiming an equal footing with natural science such as coming up with mathematical formulas to explain human activity.
1 Like
My understanding of doing a dissertation is in learning the process to do one. I suppose the process used is a significant factor in determining the certainty of the hypothesis of being true, false or indeterminate.
… as to your statement about “Social Science has been claiming an equal footing with Natural Science …”
… if memory serves see Part II, Chapters 10 and 11 in A History & Philosophy of The Social Sciences by Peter Manicas … unfortunately an overlooked Philosopher. … see also his A realist philosophy of social science : explanation and understanding
I’ve read his book a while back. I think he was mentioned in another book I was reading and was listed in the bibliography… like you suggested, read what the author has read. That’s where I came across the differences.
1 Like
… the problems always have to do with Method. 
What’s the difference between method and technique?
1 Like
…an extremely good question. Tough to answer in short order. There are actually the better parts of courses devoted to addressing your question. But here’s a go at an answer. The difference has to do with the means by which the meaning (e.g. of a particular concept) is evaluated The “evaluation” would concern the concepts effects either actual after the fact or predictive. Method is usually thought of as the use of a particular Technique (e.g Symbolic Logic or Linguistic Analysis) in order to evaluate conceptual meaning.
Objective Idealists or Pragmaticists (not Pragmatists of the Jamesian or Deweyian variety) but instead of the Peircean variety consider that the meaning of a particular concept can be found in the practical and or observable effects of a concept. See Peirce’s Pragmatic Maxim.
I’m pretty sure I have mentioned this book on GDS several times. I still consider it a “goody”.
The Illusion of Technique: A Search for Meaning in a Technological Civilization by William Barrett
2 Likes
Man, this philosophy and social science stuff is too hard! 
Thanks for your indulgence and help.
1 Like
… All we can do is just keep reading and asking questions. That Method still works for me.
I always try to remember that doubt is my friend and all it means is that I might just be about to learn something. Yahooo! Anytime!
2 Likes
… aaaand it’s spiralling downhill nicely
1 Like
… as the fairground cryers say … “scream if you want to go faster”
Dr X must be thrilled in the knowledge that very soon someone will be putting his doctorate through the anti-plagiarism software
“Blackademics” Y’all… 
1 Like
this is fast in a tailspin now, should be entertaining to watch how the guardian reading cambridge academics handle this - will they opt for the usual “far right critics” approach or will they attempt something more creative befitting of their intellectual acumen?
Sometimes, Piled higher and Deeper, can really result in awarding a PhD.
With bureaucratic DEI patina - to capture it’s true essence.
1 Like
Method versus technique made me think of our dear old friend J.S. Bach.
His technique is the rigorous, almost mathematical machinery. The strict rules of counterpoint, fugue, inversions, and canons. In a way, anyone can learn the technical mechanics of writing a canon if they study the rules long enough.
But his method is the overarching framework driving it. Things like the Affektenlehre and his theological intent. The technique is just the tool but the method is the philosophy that decides which tool to use to evoke a specific emotional or spiritual effect.
Without the method, a fugue is just a clever mathematical puzzle. With it, the strict structure actually becomes a carrier for meaning. It seems like the same issue applies to the social science. By having the technical tools (like math or statistics) means very little if you don’t have a solid method or philosophy behind what you’re actually trying to evaluate.
2 Likes
Don’t you just hate whit.
Yes, being whitty is anti-stupidity - a merre adjective
Very prejudice against native stupidity, while being a noun.
Very simple, in terms of black & white.
No grey areas!
Including between the native and/or naive ears.
1 Like
I think they misspelled “Whigs”.
1 Like