Re: Nearly 20 Percent Of Scientists Contemplate Moving Overseas Due In Part To Seques
Well, I'm speaking from a limited perspective, but from what I have encountered in my literature, psychology, and sociology classes they were mostly qualitative. Quantitative analysis seemed to more or less be a fill in the blank for backing qualitative research, when in reality it should've been the other way around.
It is the other way around. Today qualitative social researchers complain that their research is
not taken as seriously as a quantitative ones. The qualitative research is considered just like a topping cream I recall was the analogy. It is the quantitative one that mattered, but if qualitative study too was on the line with findings then all the better.
See it is like an addition, but not necessarily considered a critical one. It is a shame though for qualitative research provides such in depth reports and insights that you could be amazed.
What is your background if you do not mind me asking? What do you do? You are still anonymous and if you prefer you could PM me with this information. I am asking because I am thinking that we may not be far with our backgrounds after the exchange.
It seemed especially bad in sociology where anyone who was a sociologist could make a completely wack claim and it was automatically given legitimacy. Their words and interpretations alone were accepted without question. Then again, that might just be sociology being a wackjob study, or maybe my teacher was just a wacko with an enormous selection bias. It just came across as jargoned political dogma rather then any honest pursuit of knowledge.
There were times when I wanted it to be a political dogma to follow it blindly back at my younger ages. But nothing would stick for a dogma because such strong and sounding right claims would only stand as far as the data behind them suggested.
Psychology also has such theorists. Namely Freudian "unconscious" where one is
completely unaware of their behavior or thoughts has not been found yet. Other more conscious levels such as the preconscious as well as its more cognitive form of "non-conscious" have been identified.
But not the one where one is completely oblivious about as it is the case with the psychoanalytic main concept - the unconscious or Id. Yet it stood as a political dogma for a long while and had various followers since.
Also, as a college student, I've been asked to participate in a large amount of social science researcher's surveys and some of the questions they are asking seem like a complete joke. Too often I notice that the results that these researchers are looking for are almost built into the study's design.
Some questions are more worthy than others. I have noticed that too. I guess they are covering the more common sensual ones before they could then build on those for more interesting questions perhaps?
But anyways yes, I agree with the last statement. "Science" should be saved for exact science.
That though would remove other disciplines that also use probability as their main way to explain phenomena. For instance Economics?
Or how about the ones that do not use probability at all. Should History classes be abandoned? Not all findings are accurate you know. Some data is deduced or otherwise assumed for they did not lived to our time (especially for ancient history).
How about Anthropology? Some data are found and then a lot is mainly interpreted on top of such data to provide links about ancient civilization.
These are not exact sciences neither. Should they be abandoned for it? How narrow would science be if left with only the exact ones: Chemistry, Math, Physics, and Biology?
. 
