
Originally Posted by
Kuya
They are, depending on what you mean by rigorous. The thing that nat scientists don't know (well of course they don't know they're not soc. scientists!) is that soc. scientists used to be more empirical and rigorous till they realized that it didn't work. Fast forward to the 60s and the crisis of social science.
Essentially, the whole point of soc. science was that the philosophes from the Enlightment thought you could transmit the same techniques from natural science to a "science of the humanities" so you could figure out what human nature is, and construct the perfect human society based on rigorous, empirical, and mathematical science... furthermore they thought that if you could use the same techniques from the natural science to discover human nature, you could discover the very nature of human knowledge itself, and then, humans could obtain absolute knowledge and power over both nature and humankind. That was the whole point behind the creation of human science, the social science. That backfired lol, cue Reign of Terror, World War 1 and 2, numerous atrocious experiments of humans being treated like animals.
Right now social science is in limbo, currently developing new techniques to create knowledge about social phenomena, whilst also using some techniques from the natural science and making new ones. There isn't certaintity on what the new purpose of the social sciences should be, aside from producing knowledge, but most would agree that it needs to actually center itself around respecting and promoting human dignity... which it absolutely did not do by treating human beings like they were an atom or some cell.
That's what most nat. scientists don't realize, we tried using only techniques from nat science for social phenomena, and that failed miserably in within an awful 300 years. HOPE YOU ENJOYED THE HISTORY LESSON