I'll pay you $1000 to have you snipped

[Kuya]

There's not much i disagree with, but as for as the first part of your post: Then can't we call a "Human sexuality specialist" such, when he/she intends to dispel our conceptions of human homosexuality basing himself or herself on historical, transcutural, and and perhaps even statistical data? He/She doesn't use the scientific method, but he/she knows a great deal about the history of human sexuality, the different ways it manifests itself throughout human societies, and quantified data similar to the ones Kinsey used, while taking into account personal bias from the people being quantified; do we not call a person who knows all this, and intends to inform others that our views on human sexuality aren't absolute, or perhaps even right, but rather detrimental, a specialist, and do we call what he has formed, an opinion? What exactly was subjective about the historical facts, the transcultural facts (they did not try to interpret them, simply compare), and the quantified data with margin of errors taken into consideration?

[Kaylia]

Then can't we call a "Human sexuality specialist" such, when he/she intends to dispel our conceptions of human homosexuality basing himself or herself on historical, transcutural, and and perhaps even statistical data?

Science : is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments. Knowledge in science is gained through research.

Scientific method: refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]


If there is no analyze, then it's not science. You're simply gathering data. You could gather factual data, but it's not "science" (social or natural) unless you try to improve your understanding of the topic

Is it possible to be a specialist when you aren't doing science? It depends of your definition of the word I guess. If an encyclopedia (list of data) is a "specialist", than I agree with you, and the word isn't related to science. If the words specialist involve research and studying, I will have to disagree.


Expert (specialist): Someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound philosopher distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment.


Wiki definition seem to be closer to your definition than mine because of the "or" between knowledge and ability in a particular area of study. When i used specialist earlier, I was talking about someone who collect data, analyze it and draw conclusion...not quite sure which word I should use now.

(they did not try to interpret them, simply compare),

Pretty sure it's a contradiction. You have to interpret the result to compare them (and interpretation is subjective in this case)

Anyway, to answer your point [in]directly. Why is he trying to dispel our conception of human homosexuality? Isn't homosexuality the situation where 2 people of the same sex like each other sexually? Is there actually anything to "dispel" about this definition? Where is the "science" (from social science) in this? Can he demonstrate, within the margin of error, that his point is valid?

I'm sure he can gather factual data, but I seriously doubt his analysis would be more than an opinion based on its own value.

[Kuya]

I don't intend to call it science, and as i've stated, that example doesn't necessarily require the scientific method, because my point was that the person in question is still a specialist, a professional in his field because they are sufficiently knowledgeable in a specific subject. And as for it being an opinion, well i can very well accept that, perhaps an opinion of the highest calibre, but only because i can't honestly tell you whether that information is absolute. And as for why the person in question would study Western conceptions of human homosexuality; he would do so because our current conceptions rely on the idea that it is either A: a immoral choice B: a genetic predisposition, so you can see, there is no exact convention here, but the "opinion" of the specialist can very well add valuable ground to direct the discussion towards a more accurate avenue by portraying the relativities, the consistencies, and perhaps even statistical information of the debate.

In essence, i don't defend that many aspects of social science are not in fact science, i merely disagree on this lack of "science" making the points and its uses less legitimate. In fact, the only reason, well, perhaps partly, why it has the word science there is so it could get the legitimacy that the natural sciences enjoyed earlier on. I think, that the fact that the word science is attached there, might very well be very perjorative; you can look at psyquiatry for an example on that.

[Kaylia]

I'm not comfortable with this example, because despite being general, we assume a lot of thing (like the lack of scientifical method and the positive outcome). I would like to actually see a real life situation where such thing apply (the whole study and the conclusion), it would be easier to argue this way.

That said, I believe in such situation, they [poorly?] followed the scientifical method without knowing about it. This would explain why they managed to get result using only their intuition and factual data. It's similar to what the Greek did 2000 years ago. Some of the stuff they discovered were incredible (geometry), while other result were poor attempt at science (geocentrism, 4 elements..etc).


I think they could only gain if they showed more rigor and followed the scientifical method, instead of taking guess.