He looked like Charlie Sheen. I agree that social science is driven by agenda, and not always rigorous in its process. I would hope at least Psychology is more sound by now. Studying humans is always going to be complex, and it might not even be possible to do it scientifically, but people are trying. Feynman was an honest man.
Psychology is a pseudo-scientific game played by folk who are credentialed well beyond their intellectual capabilities. Two essential criteria for X to be considered a scientific endeavor are objectivity and quantification. Psychology is (should be) the examination of subjective events that may culminate in objective acts. As for number, the parametric precision of most any psychological study is "effect present/effect absent". That is ordinality (more vs less). It is not the interval or ratio scale values required to test actual scientific predictions.
As someone who studies anthropology I can say I partially agree with this guy. Although we have tried to formulate laws that are universally applicable, there has been no succes on that regard. Culture and society seem to operate differently than the natural world. Thus our epistemological presupositions and methodological approaches are different. As for the science thing, we have had that discussion ourselfes. Let's say there are some who don't think we should call what we do science and some others that think that we're scientists. However, that's not to say that there's no value in the knowledge we produce. I would also like to say that natural scientists are often blinded by their claims of impartiality that they ignore their own cultural and political biases. Said biases have ultimately had an effect on the knowledge they produce; shall we remember: eugenics, polygenism, race-based medicine, the myth of the "missing link", women missdiagnosed with "hysteria", among many others embarrassing memories of the natural sciences.
Anthropology is in a different class because historically there is more rigorous science attached to it. But I'm sure you've read your colleagues' papers in the sociology field. Would you want to be compared to them?
@@mikewilliams6025 Where do I start. It's false that anthropology has been historically "more scientific" than sociology. In fact, anthropologists faced criticism from the scientific community for over a century because ethnografy (our main research method) was not considered a reliable approach. In contrast, sociology was considered more scientific because they used mainly statistics and cuantitative approaches. Now, you suggest I woulnd't want anthropology and sociology to be compared, well actually another huge debate within social sciences is the difference between anthropology and sociology. This is because, although they started out as very different things, several critizisms and new theories have blurred the lines between the two. They have become increasingly interdisciplinary, drawing from each other's theories and methods.. Today, anthropologists and sociologists employ cuantitative and cualitative approaches. They also have expanded to include a lot of epistemological and ontological perspectives, making both essentially more eclectic, and thus, causing them to overlap. I guess my question to you is, what's your issue with sociology?
This guy is Theoretical Physicist, what makes you think that he is taking eugenics, polygenism, race-based medicine as a reference. This is totally a wrong assumption. And of course there is this controversy where string theorists are pseudoscientists as well. Even more, I also know some Mathematicians who also do not enjoy how Physicist applies Mathematics in their fields. This is so a very controversial topic. Though, I am inclined to his propositions and suggestions, I also know social sciences are a necessity and also produce some valuable knowledge and insight. But yes, research methodologies applied in social sciences are prone to a lot of debate and questioning.
so... if i would start counting all applicated theories of social sciences, that remain unprovable...my only option would be to copy and paste a book...
@@ApistevistI do not disagree with Feynman here at all, but I find your comment questionable as Sociology students have to pass Statistics in order to get even an undergraduate degree.
Show us how to use maths to study trauma for instance, or shell shock if you want something whose existence cannot be disputed. Also, string theory is mathematical and bogus at the same time. I have a background in maths as well as social science. People in social science are not as dumb as your physics or maths echo-chamber tells you.
@@5678plm its not about dumb or smart, or math or not, its about understanding something. So far the scientific method is the best way to do this, but the problem is that people do not know what the scientific method is, even those who do "research". We use math to define guiding principlas in finance and economics, that doesnt make it science, we dont use math to define guiding principles in molecular immunology ( im not talking about hypothesis testing here ) but we do science. The problem is that sociology, psychology, medicine, anthropology, and much more do not follow the scientific method and thats why you can have intelligent sociologists claiming you can be "healthy at every size" or physicians claiming that they can vaccinate against a ssRNA virus etc
"it is not man's irreducibility, what is designated as his invincible transcendence, nor even his excessively great complexity, that prevents him from becoming an object of science. Western culture has constituted, under the name of man, a being who, by one and the same interplay of reasons, must be a positive domain of *knowledge* and cannot be an object of *science* " - The order of things, M. Foucault, 1965
Well, Psychology was not supposed to be a social science nor focused on transforming culture. William James addresses this conflict very well in "The Meaning of Truth". But once Marxists (lacanians) and Utopian behaviourists took control of it there was no turning back. The same happened to medicine and now most people and medics can't differentiate Medicine from Health Policy.
Yes, because the people in those fields almost always seem to lack basic rigor. They formulate their ideas based on moral impulse then send it out the door, there's a philosopher named Peter Boghossian who calls this "Idea Laundering."
curious what your thoughts are on medical epistemology or more broadly the philosophy of science. I don’t think what feynman says here is necessarily disharmonious with what a lot of “post-modernist” thinkers put forward. he is justifiably calling out a scientism (specifically the Mechanical Turk that is social ‘science’)
I am very unfamiliar with the idea of medical epistemology. I do feel that much of post-modernism is based on subjective realities and therefore really opposes things that point to objectivity. What post modernists were you thinking about?
I prefer social sciences as they deal with things I can understand and therefore I can have more confidence in what social scientists research. I have more confidence in research that seeks understand what humans do than in research on qunatum mechanics because one deals with the world i live in and one deals with something I can't understand.
I tried anyway. Many many years later I have come to much of the same conclusions, but I dont think the effort isnt worth it because we still have terribly damaging power conflicts, self-denial, environmental problems that is endangering the basis for liberal democracies etc. ... who knows, maybe this is just me further delving into the sunk cost fallacy, but I havent seen any engineering feat that can survive a pernicious ideology.
Evolutionary psych is probably the only psych field that's attempting to be rigorous and based on the material science of the Human animal, though I'm sure it's loaded with problems at least they ask very hard questions.
I feel the same way about Freud or Jung. I mean, I am using insight too and think that certain things are true that can’t be proven but I don’t write books about them.
its about understanding what it means to know something, and at present, the scientific method is the best method of doing so, how well you follow it tells you how reliable your conclusion is, which is why physics studies are replicated much more than psychology
I'm sure Feynman was brilliant, so this clip might be out of context, but these ramblings don't make sense on their own. Is he talking about specific studies? And why would social science look for "laws" like physics does? Does he think social science needs to imitate physics to produce valid results, despite studying a very different reality?
Because with hard sciences like mathematics and physics, you can predict the exact way something falls, can create nuclear energy, and make thousands of cars that are all almost precisely the same. All the while, the social sciences will always be theories about peoples' behaviour that can never be proven. It's mostly ideas, and the only information obtained with actual care are statistics, from which it's hard to derive actual conclusions, even though many people try and preach them like the absolute truth.
They are not studying a different reality (they should be [i.e., experiential reality vs physical reality]], but in their efforts to ape science they reduce subjective phenomena to physical proxies).
@@anselmrafael3309 1. The idea of Absolute truth is a strange platonic chimera from an ignorant age. As I’m unaware of any reputable epistemologies since Hume to truly indulge in said concept. 2. While I agree that physics is by far the most predictable and rigorous science (hence being named the central science), it still is not completely certain; as many of its fundamental principles and questions are still highly mysterious and up for debate. 3. While I agree with your assessment of contemporary social science (especially the social ‘science’ that is rooted in postmodern doublespeak) I nonetheless cannot share your short-sighted proclamation concerning the supposed inability for the social sciences to ever progress or become more objective. As although technological, instrumental and normative hurdles stand in the way- as of the moment- i still retain an optimism concerning the improvement in the methodological and scientific practices of the social sciences. For example, developments in information science are already allowing many mathematically minded social scientists to work tirelessly on constructing firm systems analysing human behaviour; whilst eliminating bias via machine learning. While of course we can never expect the social sciences to ever posses the same exactness enjoyed by physics; in the same way we cannot of chemistry or any other branch of natural science. But to relish in a naive attitude concerning the possible developments of the human sciences, I find distasteful and rather intrusive. Even if we can never truly find a solid method/foundation to base social science; having to concede to a purely descriptive and statistical methodology (akin to biological taxonomy). I should, nonetheless rejoice the prospects that future minds of great caliber may nonetheless endeavour to improve the understanding of the majority by any available means. “All the sciences have a relation, greater or less, to human nature; and...however wide any of them may seem to run from it, they still return back by one passage or another. Even Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, and Natural Religion, are in some measure dependent on the science of MAN; since they lie under the cognizance of men, and are judged of by their powers and faculties.” - David Hume
@@medaphysicsrepository2639 An illogical analogy, since psyops is a direct derivation from THEORY, while playing basketball is a kinesthetic/physical activity. If the theories behind psyops were haphazardly slapped-together pseudoscience, the ops part wouldn't really work, right? That should have been easy to figure out, lol.
playing basketball is no different from doing trajectory calculations in classical mechanics, your brain just does it for you because it has received alot of data regarding outcomes everyday of objects falling. Now does that mean that michael jordan understands the theory of relativity ? no, does he need to ? no Did dog breeders in the 18th century understand DNA? no Same thing with psy-ops, people have been practicing and perfecting the act of lying and deceit for millennia, and trust me, ALOT of psy-ops have failed and I mean ALOT, even with access to near infinite amounts of data.
What a cop out. There's a classic cartoon strip. A man walks down the street one night and loses his keys in the dark. But he refuses to search for his keys anywhere but under the street lights...because it's easier to see. Shall we endeavor to study the things that lend themselves to easy measurement and abide by simple mathematical structures, or shall we study what is important to advance our species? I do not mean "easy" in terms of being intellectually challenging. I mean easy relative to the socio-behavioral sciences because of the complexity of studying human beings...the interactions of 100 billion neurons per brain, interacting with hundreds of millions of brains. And easier because of the ethical considerations of studying life versus inanimate objects and forces. No doubt the social-behavioral sciences are less precise and lend themselves more poorly to empirical and theoretical research methods. But because something is more challenging, and will involve more error along the way, does not mean we should limit our searching to under the street lights.
Yes we choose to fumble around in the dark, not because it is easy, but because it is difficult! Meanwhile the physicist invents a torch and makes moot the entire discussion
"No doubt the social-behavioral sciences are less precise and lend themselves more poorly to empirical and theoretical research methods. But because something is more challenging, and will involve more error along the way, does not mean we should limit our searching to under the street lights." More challenging? So a complete lack of basic rigor = more challenging? I disagree, it's more like schools dropped their standards to get more Government funded loan money in the doors. The mean IQ of Universities has plummeted from ~110 - 101, this isn't only bad, it's dangerous. I honestly think the mean IQ for students in fields like sociology might actually be below the general public now, I hope I'm wrong but this is dangerous. Most people don't belong in a University as they lack the basic genetic fundamentals to be a producing intellectual, full stop.
Kind of dumb to expect the social fields (what with their fuzzier, more multivariable subject matter -- i.e. humans) to adhere to that level of mathematical modelling and theory building. They will always remain probabilistic. And they do a pretty solid job of it if you take the time to actually understand them and their methods and results instead of projecting personal politics and BS. Overall, a disappointingly stupid comment from someone was, objectively, a genius (in his own realm, at least). (I'm a physics major btw!)
@stuffgotreal6212 Well said. There is a sweeping epistemology book on sociology's place among the sciences. It points out the problems with precisely the positivist and pragmatic criteria Feynman holds up for social science. (La Connaissance Sociologique, by Michel Freitag).
I'm in a biophysics master's... You are right cells are stochastic... Let alone human interactions... We can not model these things because of how complex they are... But we can look at how statistical mechanics looks at the system... Most probabilistic behavior in certain cases if not all... I work in cellular biophysics... And the professor who teaches me does lots of stochastic processes maths... Stochastic thermo etc to understand a certain aspect... Yeah, it does have assumptions ( too many )... Like, assume a cell in an isolated media... No ecological interaction... Etc
Yea 100%, I studied both biology and history. To expect history or another social science to adhere to mathematical principles is legit brain dead logic. It's all based on probability.
The guy was a great physicist, but he doesn’t see the link between the social sciences with what he himself said was the hardest practical problem in physics- turbulent flow? We still haven’t ‘solved’ this, but simulations are getting much closer.
The problem is that there are things that are solidly and concretely known, at least in the sense that nobody has been capable of showing an exception yet. What is shown in social sciences without any known exception? That people exist?
But we have the equations that describe turbulent flow, we just cant solve them analitically. Numerically we can reproduce turbulent flow. Psychology does not predict anything.
Psychology is not a science. Two key criteria to qualify as a scientific approach to acquisition of knowledge are objectivity and quantification. As regards objectivity, the very thing that makes psychological inquiry distinct from biological investigation is its (supposed, not typical) focus on the subjective causes of behavior. Subjectivity is, by definition, not objectivity. There are no objective means of assessing subjectivity absent reducing the experiential aspects of reality to objective (currently conceived as material/physical) aspects. If that is undertaken, then the subjective essence of a phenomena is reduced out of existence. Second, quantification in psychology is a game, at best. We assign numbers to concepts lacking any measurable physical properties (think Likert scale). What, for instance, are the units of a thought? Absent units, there is no justifiable quantification for measure. More, our so-called scientific theories permit the parametric precision of "effect present/effect absent" (e.g., try predicting the numeric outcome on ANY memory study. You can't. All you can say is that if the IV is in play as hoped, the experimental condition will differ by some non-specifiable amount from a comparison condition). In short, our "numbers" are simply proxies for the words "more" and "less".
He could have cleared up a lot of his confusion if he had simply looked up the etymology and history of the word “science”, but I guess if he’d done that he couldn’t have done the obnoxious “haha social science dumb” routine, which was already clapped-out in the 1970s. What a jackass.
Medicine stopped being science based a VERY long time ago... its now "evidence" based, so if you hop on one foot and spin in circles and magically "get better" youve got a treatment program for yourself , psychiatrists are physicians after all.
Medicine is based on scientific findings (e.g., organic chem, biology). It is not, per se, a science. It is the practical application of "some" scientifically validated information.
@@krishanchoudhury Yes we know, the "science is settled" right? That's why so many countries had different outcomes from Covid whilst using the same approach right? Right? Medicine has been compromised by greed and ideology for decades. If you think otherwise you're foolish.
He's making a halfway decent point about methodology. Yes, soc sci is definitely less predictively rigorous (especially back then), but advances in neurology will eventually systematize a lot of the superficial observations into a coherent form. Brain activity is effectively a matter of mathematical permutation and combinatorics -- from this phenomenon arises individual consciousness. Put a bunch of individual connectomes together and you get sociology, anthropology, etc. It's just a matter of time before we can compute any social phenomenon. I hate saying it, but it's probably true. But something else is worth pointing out here -- never a good idea to take the casual reflections of someone who knows very little about a set of fields (especially ones that have made huge strides in the last 50 years) to support some personal gripe. Dead end road. P.S. This is a junk acct with no notifications, so I'm not ignoring anyone who replies, I just don't see it. I also don't check manually btw.
Neurology is a medical field that is clinical neuroscience and other basic sciences combined... It's just an application in clinics.. What does this field have to do with social science? I disagree with brain activity.. Being studying these things it's not maths.. The patterns can be picked up by using maths but most of them are biophysical and biochemical processes...
