However, recent revelations from Wall Street tell me that the hot bed of Post Modernism has been in the Chartered Accountants courses all along.

I've been challenged on my dismissive attitude concerning "women's studies" by someone smarter and more experienced in that course of study than me, so I have pulled my horns in of late.

However, I would add that it would not hurt to make sure you take at least one "hard science" course to balance the at times rather mystical relationship to facts and evidence that the social *ahem* sciences have to offer.

Now, if you'll excuse me, there are other honet's nests I need to throw rocks at........

quote:

---

If you take enough philosophy, you'll discover that hard "science" can be put into contemptuous quotes as well, with their claims to objectivity that border on the same blind "belief" as religion.

---

Wrong on a couple of points, Michelle. (we've argued this before, haven't we? Anyway, I quite enjoy this kind of thing, and I "argue" with fondness for the subject, and you.) The first sentence should start, "If you take too much philosophy...." And, as we all know, science is not a religion. The line of demarcation being that while religion (and the social *ahem*sciences) have no self correcting mechanism, science does.

I do believe women's studies and other such courses have important value. I'm just saying that the hypothesis presented still have to pass sceptical muster. And the tools for this kind of critical analysis cannot be found in the social *ahem* sciences.

Telling point: When the authors of "The Bell Curve" and locally, Phillip Rushton published their psuedo scientific mallarky concerning race and intelligence, who debunked them? Was it their fellow social "scientists", or was it persons from the "hard" sciences? Ah, the debunkers were the late Stephen J. Gould and David Suzuki, both from "hard" sciences.

The reason why others from the social sciences didn't self police by debunking "The Bell Curve" and Phillip Rushton, is that while they may have seen the egregious missuse of statistics, they didn't want to attack their methodology, as it wasn't too far removed from the accepted practice in the social sciences at large.

The best articulation on this subject I've ever found can be had here:
From "Quack Watch"

It's a short article, won't take a minute.

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

Telling point: When the authors of "The Bell Curve" and locally, Phillip Rushton published their psuedo scientific mallarky concerning race and intelligence, who debunked them? Was it their fellow social "scientists", or was it persons from the "hard" sciences? Ah, the debunkers were the late Stephen J. Gould and David Suzuki, both from "hard" sciences.

---

This is completely untrue of course both of these dubious theories were discredited within the field(professional journals) prior to them being addressed in a broader public forum by Gould and Suzuki.

Anyone who paid attention in Psch. 101 is aware of the methodolical and psychometric flaws in I.Q. testing.

They would also be aware of the correlation fallacy that both these "researchers" work is based on.

Sorry to say Tommy but like your criticism of Post Modernism your understanding of methodology in Social Science seems to be based on limited knowledge and unverified assumptions. Hardly scientific.

I also believe the point Michelle is making is that Science is capable of being as dogmatic and narrow in it's focus as religion.

So Wizkid these are these are the sorts of criticisms you will be faced with for the course of your academic career,but you can take faith in the fact that such arguments are generally based in patriarchal insecurity that attempts to restrict what kinds of knowledge or forms of analysis are valid.

Bits for twist ( comp sci )
Rocks for Jocks ( we all know that one - Glgy)
Scopes for Dopes ( astr )

I wish I could remember the rest.

I am sure they exist at all universities and WizKid shouldn't have a problem.

The social sciences and the so-called "hard" sciences are really two sides of the same coin. They're both about the study of who, what, where and how we came to be stranded on this little planet in the cosmos. Sort of like right brain and left brain - you need both to get through life.

What's with all these universities where you need at least one hard science when you're taking humanities or social sciences? I don't have to have any - the only math related course I've ever taken was economics (and come to think of it, I got a 91 in it, so maybe I'm not so bad at certain kinds of math after all). And I didn't have to take economics - I could go through university and take nothing but Philosophy and Women's Studies if I wanted to. I have taken no math or science courses.

So I guess I'm destined to be a half-wit. But at least I recognize the validity of math and science, whereas mathematicians and scientists are so often scornful of the arts...

I was forced to take a natural science in first year--it was biology. A couple of years later I still needed a science credit and took No Math Astronomy--easiest course I ever took.