This isn’t like understanding a child’s game so I would say your baseball analogy is a false equivalence.

I’m not qualified enough to know what science is (ad hominem)

That isn’t ad hominem. Suggesting that the roots of your misunderstanding is due to your lack of experience or education in the field is not a personal attack. I am also not making an emotional appeal which is an alternate form of ad hominem.

Ad hominem would be if I suggested you couldn’t have an understanding because you are stupid (which I am absolutely in no way suggesting that you are unintelligent). I have not done this. I have suggested your lack of expertise in the field might be a good reason for you to question your own conclusions.

directing me to read an entire field of philosophy that for all I know has its entire existence bent towards proving that the social sciences are sciences exactly in the same way that natural sciences are

You dont need to become an expert but if you want to understand what we believe science is this is the place to start as the other place is a terminal degree in a science field which would be silly to suggest. The philosophy of science is the best field for you to get the answers to the uncertainty you have in your understanding

This is also not an example of ad hominem.

Why not read about the philosophy of science to expand your understanding? Why do you need to do it because I proved something to you?

No one is “pretending” anything.

You literally have no experience or knowledge to determine what science is and is not since you have no background in any form of it.

Im sorry if the above offends you but it is the xase that a lack of education and/or experience in a field does mean you aren’t going to be someone who has an understanding of it.

If ypu are interested in learning why these are seen as sciences consider looking into the philosophy of science. You might be surprised what you learn when you try to.

i have a degree, but not in science. Does that make me unqualified to state that the field of psychology, and most other social sciences lack the epistemic rigor of something like physics or biology and therefore are not real sciences?

That would depend on your actual field. If you had a masters or phd focusing on the philosophy of science, then yes. If you have a degree in anything else I would suggest considering that your lack of experience within science might be what is behind your misconception.

My education was in political science and international relations. At the undergraduate level for most programs political science is more pre-law or governmental studies and does not seem like a science. When you go for your masters it suddenly become very much a statistcal science.

What the anti-science (not you) ,science agnostic (not you), and those without a background in science (this is you) typically miss is that not all sciences are created equal. Things that rely on metastudies, as many social sciences do, typically will be less conclusive than say an experiment that can be observed directly, but that doesn’t mean both are not science.

Economists aren’t trying to predict the future. That’s a misconception that is done away with in the first few days of intro.

deleted by creator

Im asking these questions to asses what you actually understand science to be.

The term “social science” reeks of insecurity to me because other than using the scientific method, they are not a sciences at all, but I guess academics needed a way to to defend themselves from the bullying physicists.

Do you have a degree, or better yet a terminal degree in a science field? What is your actual academic experience in doing social science experiments?

A methodology with reproducible experiments and results.

And why don’t you think psychology fits this?

What makes something a science?

That wouldn’t be true for Christianity as 3 of the 4 Gospels were cribbing off the 4th one. Heck the Gospel of John and the Revelation unto John were written by at least two different people and the Revelation likely was included at the Council of Nicea because they both had John in the name. Christianity would be very different without revelations.

What are you talking about? That’s like saying Patrick Bateman, of American Psycho and Rules of Attraction, is not an aspirational alpha male figure!

/s

Which means 54% cannot write a competent book report hitting the major plots and themes.

*palate fatigue

I work in wine importing so this is a mistake I make all the damn time.

pallet- thing used to strap stuff to so they can be put on containers (for container trucks and ships).

palate - roof of your mouth or an alternate word for your taste

Palette- painter’s thing for holding paint.

Im only down with eating clean bugs that are large enough to have enough substance to be worthwhile or whatever makes it into processed foods and “foods” that I eat (jelly beans arent really food and frequently have shellac and that comes from a specific beetle.)

They were like “How can we justify them having the place we know we need them to have?” and worked from there.

I know a guy living on Central Park West with 2000 sq ft two floor apartment with park views that was paying less than what I paid for 1k sq ft in the middle of Queens. That’s a nicer place in a better area than Friends had for less than 3k a month thirty years after the show all because of rent control.

We know they all came from money except Joey and Phoebe. They could also be getting money from family.

Again their living room had to fit six or more. There are episodes where they have six people in Lucy’s house but rarely is it more than four or five.

Seinfeld had 4 main cast and they rarely had anyone else in their places other than the main 4. No one needed to fit a dozen people in a room.

Were you renting living space in NYC in 1994? I was.

Do you know anyone with a ridiculous place because of rent control policies? I know several. Everything about the show makes sense within the context of the time once you realize that eight or so people need to fit on the stage in many scenes

you think you know better than someone who worked on tv in NYC at that time?

Mary Tyler Moore’s show never had the expectation of holding six or more people in the same room like friends.

All in the family took place in a house. Im not sure how you miss this. It’s in the credits.

Lucy and her Husband never had more than a handful of people on screen at once. They dont need the space Friends does.

Friends needs a space for the main cast plus partners and that requires a larger space plus the ability to fit crew which requires large places. The bit about rent control makes perfect sense if you have experience with NYC real-estate.

NP,I was told the same thing by a camera guy back in the late 1990s about this exact show.

Some of that is due to the realities of filming in a stage made to look like an apartment as you need the space for the camera crew to fit. This everyone lives in massive places.

Literally all of your food and drinks in America are sold by the metric unit. That’s why it is on the packaging. Your “fifth” of vodka is actually 750ml and is not 1/5 of a gallon.

Who certifies the “proper” format? Im fairly sure it isnt dd-mm-yy