There is a hierarchy of rational fields, I get, but putting the social sciences at the bottom of the hierarchy is one thing, but challenging the methods and language within the science itself is far-fetched. As a mathematician myself, I have to say that social science is based on nonempirical consensus, with little propositional logic to "show the work" of fundamental theories. Philosophy might help with that, but it takes much longer to build knowledge on centuries of literature to fully appreciate modern societies' different approaches to ethnography and political science in contrast to the laid out logical laws of the harder sciences. But without social science, a lot of culture and civil development will go unrecorded or unrecognised, leaving no lessons for future civil planning and political legislation.
It depends on the social science. I used to attend Research Methods conferences and what passed as "research" was laughable. But the majority use repeated observation, involve rational thinking, and involve high levels of validity and reliability. But these wing nuts in social justice studies and gender studies have screwed it all up.
Generally he is worth listening to, but in this talk and in his answers to questions he disappointed me. Too many allusions which assume irrationality is the province of the Right. The worst talk of the conference unfortunately. He does, however, mention that universities have become Left dominated.
This comment is especially confusing when he has a list of things where the left are acting completely irrational and focuses on them for a majority of the talk. He literally says at the end he doesn't want to let them off the hook and so brings up problems with people on the right, which are fair and offers a fully balanced view. It seems like you need to take more time to mull over his points on myside bias if this is your response to this talk.
@@parkerlincoln49 you could be correct. Generally I find him even handed, which is why I was surprised. I’ll take your critique gladly and hope you are indeed correct. But, I’m too busy to watch again and take notes .
Seriously, He lists Wikepedia as a rationality-promoting institution. Audible groans from crowd on that statement. That statement right there knocked him down a few pegs in my useless and worthless estimation.
Careful on that one.. Sometimes there's a reason for making sure people READ first before going off and reading other books. Publishing is a little tricky nowadays.
