Schema is a boring topic to most people so a proper audience is hit or miss, always uncertain. Succeeded in two places I posted it, failed in three places, including here. No biggie.

Schema is a boring topic to most people so a proper audience is hit or miss, always uncertain. Succeeded in two places I posted it, failed in three places, including here. No biggie.

==

The utilization of mathematical modeling within the social sciences as a whole *has* been a rather disastrous affair: as it’s often been said, and quite true: mathematics works almost unreasonably well in physics over other methods.

However, it’s still important to create some decent ontologies to deal with all reams of knowledge, even psychology. Psychology has a more difficult task in that it’s dealing in a very subjective realm, although cogpsych has been making progress.

I didn’t intend a metaphorical pun in “caught on” but perhaps you notice something I didn’t. So, I welcome your input.

==

Ah! I didn’t make the logical connection with “caught on”. It was right in front of me too. Nice tongue emoticon

You’re absolutely right of course. Some of the tools aren’t fully adequate though: Currently standard philosophical debating methods are often used in lieu of scientific validation for soft sciences (at least in the public sphere) and while finding fallacies in arguments is useful, the closed world nature of “the thought experiment” as well as how it is applied when attempting to invalidate social science findings can only get one so far.

Still it’s something I suppose. Meta studies can provide further insight: that seems to be a popular method of analysis right now. But as statistical analysis can also be prone to error depending upon the chosen constraints, the chosen variables, data fitting, etc, it too requires scrutiny as well.

The trend as of late has been application of reductionism to all of the sciences, with the presumption that each falls into each other like Russian nesting dolls. Of course that’s a fantasy: They don’t. But it’s a strong part of the belief system of many that someday they’ll inevitably nest neatly into one another.

But, for now, there’s multiple Sciences for a good reason [and likely more than one reason]: It’s useful.

==

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


4 + = ten

Leave a Reply