Well the first two answers prove your point, and it's sad.
I was doing it for money. The thousands in my pockets did not seem sad.
About the third one, I'm not trolling, that's your neck of the woods! It just seemed odd to me that you'd try and discredit the social sciences based on research done by the social sciences (e.g. daniel kahneman etc.)
I can discredit social sciences as "sciences". They are simply descriptive fields. NOT scientific. And guess what. I just did with plenty of examples why they cannot be scientific. Care to upgrade your counter-arguments and put that philosophy degree to (any) use?
Well it seems like you vacillate between the 'soft' point that these disciplines simply shouldn't use the moniker 'science', and the 'harder' point that these disciplines shouldn't be funded period. If you're arguing for the latter point, then, since I already mentioned (the Nobel prize winning psychologist) Daniel Kahneman, you could maybe try and explain to me why you think his discoveries are unimportant and why we shouldn't care about them.
I don't care if they do. I am just pointing the flaw out.
titles and contexts don't mean shit. You are appealing to authority to win an argument. It's sad. Learn to argue based on my arguments no based on "Look but but this guy got a Nobel, he is important!"
But hey, I guess you have to learn a bit about the Nobel charade as well. You seriously need to do some reading man.
Start with this. If you want to continue the argument before you google, you won't like my next link.
https://heatst.com/world/bob-dylans-nobel-prize-is-a-joke-even-he-thinks-so/
I wasn't making the argument you're accusing me of! Yeah I mentioned his Nobel prize (in parentheses) but that was beside the point. I actually read the guy's research and it's very instructive, and in fact I think you'd love it! You could try reading his book Thinking fast and slow if you got the time and appetite. I don't care shit for nobel prizes etc. tbh.
You are not making any argument why it is science.
Read it. equivalent of self-help of Tony Robbins but with pedantic explanations of basic anthropological principles. Everything psychology has, it got from anthropology.
I can't make any argument why it's science without going into the specifics, nor do I think have you made an argument, because again one needs to go into the specifics. You have made declarations. I haven't seen any arguments.
You and I must've read different books! I admit the book isn't written in the same dry academic style as his research, but comparing him to Tony Robbins?!! The article I linked to doesn't read like self-help to me.
And by 'anthropology', you mean those guys who say anything is valid within the context of every specific society? So if one society believes the earth is flat, they're right, and if another disagrees, they're also right—you mean those guys?
Pick anything from psychology. anything you want and try to support it.
I did make arguments in my post. go read it again and make counter arguments,
the link and the book are two different things.
that's sociology you are thinking.
sigh...now you are just shooting yourself on the foot
Apparently besides reading completely different books with the same titles, you and I haven't met the same anthropologists or read the same academic texts either! It was only a few weeks ago I was talking to an anthropologist and she was giving me the same crap about cultural relativism.
Your offer to pick something from psychology and try to support it is tempting but time-consuming, plus I've 'known' you for years and I can't recall a single instance where you admitted a mistake, so I think the endeavor would be pointless. Suffice it to say that it was you who mentioned the 'eating influences decisions' thing, but apparently you don't consider that statement supportable, because it was discovered by the social sciences.
I only mentioned him in the first place cos you were basically quoting research he was involved in (judges being influenced in their verdicts according to the time they had lunch etc.) : http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889.full
quoting his research doesn't make the field scientific. I only put these links because you asked.
you are hurting yourself man. do follow up