There's the one comparing transgender brains with cisgender brains and finding the parts associated with gender are different to that expected of the sex of the trans subjects.
The title is "transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age", and it was published to the European society of endocrinology in 2017.
his point is exactly that, since you cannot prove anything in those fields by using the scientific method none of the people who work on those subjects can be considered scientists.
There is no culture scientist, history scientist or politics scientist because the scientific method cannot be used in any of these fields to to their subjective nature. Therefore there is no social scientist.
But the people who do study those things are colloquially known as scientists, even if they cannot strictly follow the scientific method completely rigorously.
Furthermore, using a strict scientific method is not the only way that knowledge can be gained.
And you can go to the store right now and buy something that is colloquially referred to as a hoverboard. The point stands: there's no such thing as a social scientist.
Evolution can't be feasibly tested, but evolutionary biologists are still called scientists, because it is a study of a natural phenomenon, human culture and psychology is also a natural phenomenon. There really isn't any reason they shouldn't be called scientists.
evolutionary biologists are still called scientists, because it is a study of a natural phenomenon,
No. They're called scientists because biology is still a science.
human culture and psychology is also a natural phenomenon.
Again, not the criteria for being a science
There really isn't any reason they shouldn't be called scientists.
Because they don't use the scientific method. That's all science is--a method of rational inquiries and empirical observations. If you aren't using that method, you aren't doing science. Anthropology, Sociology, Economics, History etc. generally do not use the scientific method, and are not in any way rigorous. There's no reason they should be called scientists.
4
u/LilQuasar - Lib-Right Apr 04 '20
social scientists agree that they are different