I don't know if I am just misunderstanding you, but I wasn't saying that philosophy and social sciences are subjective, but that my belief that they are more useful is subjective. I think that setting up stable social systems is more important than understanding how the natural world works.Red wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:16 pmI know you didn't explicitly say otherwise, but just to be safe, philosophy is not subjective.
I wouldn't say it's subjective, every science has their usage. The social sciences are more useful for government and economic systems and figure out effective methods of social progress, while the natural sciences are more applicable to cures for diseases and the building of infrastructure.
In what way are the variables harder to control?In the natural sciences, when you make a claim, it's peer-reviewed by several other professionals, and if you fuck up, it goes against your reputation as a scientist. In the social sciences, when you make a claim, it's peer-reviewed by fellow professionals, but due to having harder variables to account for and are harder to control, it leads to biases in the study, such as publication or even confirmation bias.
I'm going to give you the same answer I gave you before:You also have to take into account political biases, which can affect what the researcher says about their results (the laws of physics don't care if you voted for Trump). I showed you this, right?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... dents.html
You see how their political views affect who they think are the best/worst Presidents? Why don't they have some sort of objective consensus which they all can agree on?
Republican Political Scientists aren't biased in favour of Reagan because they are Political Scientists, it is because they are Republicans. A biased political scientist may ignore evidence that suggests Reagan was a shit President. A biased physicist may just as well ignore evidence that supports loop theory. In either case, the results could be biased.
That is why I consider Philosophy more important than the natural sciences as it establishes moral principles that they can not. However, I'd consider the social sciences and history even more important as they show how we can put them into practice. Again, that is all subjective ranking.Absolutely. Philosophy just answers what the natural and social sciences can not. Philosophy has already answered these questions, it's just that most people aren't aware of them, much like science overall.