Social Sciences Criticism

I wonder what academia (sociology, anthropology) says about the issue. Any pointers?

Haha. Don't blame hackernews! This is social science encounters real research ;)

You can throw out Reddit guy words all you want but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I didn't exclude any discipline I said it extends to all of them. That's not how "no true scotsman" works. I gave you sources to back that up. Also, gender studies is not really classified as a social science and I did Google "replication crisis gender studies" and didn't find much--I'm not sure how a replication crisis can extend to a largely theoretical discipline

Gay should be fired. Meanwhile: almost every comment you make on HN is a social science argument of one sort or the other. You're a social science nerd. It's fine if you think social science at Harvard is being done badly; that's a colorable argument. But I don't think you of all people can put yourself above the whole endeavor of social science.

Not proof, but more commentary:https://quillette.com/2018/10/01/the-grievance-studies-scand...

> complete trashThat's not constructive at all. This kind of response is against HN guidelines.This group/site entirely consists of university professors, all of whom are named on the site [1]. The basis for post I linked to was a paper that was published in Cambridge's Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal [2], and was written by one of the authors.You're entitled to disagree with it, but the burden of proof is on you.[1]: <a href="http://hete

>You can throw out Reddit guy words all you want but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.But in this case you are wrong, and this isn't reddit.>I didn't exclude any discipline I said it extends to all of them. That's not how "no true scotsman" works."A true discipline has poor science". This is a variation of No True Scotsman. QED.>I gave you sources to back that upYou gave no sources that backed anything up. You came in with a huge no

The "bogus" comment falls in a paragraph about ventures where the earnest don't generally win. So the first question to ask is: do the earnest generally win in that kind of academic field? I don't know much about that field, but I'm guessing probably not just because it is too closely tied to politics. If you earnestly persue research, you are likely to find something that contradicts the current political fashions, and end up buried. So in that sense, PG is probably rig

So your comment is (rightly) getting downvoted. I think readers here tend to reject anecdotal arguments and rely on data. The critiques of sociology and anthropology are legitimate: those fields are not like technical fields and they lend themselves to weird conclusions that don't get peer reviewed in a way that's different from, say, math or physics.

Your entire post is a series of sociological assertions about academics and engineers without scientific evidence. I'm sure the irony was intentional.