Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in logical reasoning. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Examples for natural sciences: physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology

Social sciences: psychology, sociology, criminology, psychiatry

Natural science has very good mathematical laws and algorithms to predict phenomena based on solid theories. Whereas social science follows the scientific model in lab reports based on hypothesising general theories.

Is social science actually a science if it lacks core elements of natural science? If so, should it be called something else other than science?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Joseph Weissman Feb 16 '13 at 14:56

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Is there a question in here? Is the question the one in the title? Also, if the question is in the title I'm not sure what the body of your question is. Is that your answer? I'm not sure what you're after here so some clarification would be nice. As it stands it seems like you're trying to solicit discussion. – Dennis Feb 16 '13 at 9:08
Hey Dennis, yes the question is the one in the title. I am just unsure if my body is correct. I am not seeking a discussion, but more of a second opinion of the question in the title. I obviously have my perspective, but am unsure it it is widely accepted. I hope this clears up your concerns. – Paul Feb 16 '13 at 12:52
FWIW, I think it's a valid question and I think the answer is "not really, not across the board anyway", but approaching it with more tact and attention to detail (especially the detail of the requirements for something to be science which is not logically that you find mathematical laws) is the best chance for learning something or coming to a solid conclusion. It is true that finding mathematical laws is a great way of preventing social pressures from overriding the requirement for evidence to fit well with a theory (and to show when there is more to do), but it's not the only way. – Rex Kerr Feb 16 '13 at 16:03
I added a vote for re-opening. Although I still think the question is a bit hard to answer, at least now it isn't a leading question (at least not as much). – Dennis Feb 17 '13 at 5:58
Just to try to be clear -- I do think the general subject is interesting, I just think there are a lot more specific and constructive concerns we can pose here relating to it. – Joseph Weissman Feb 17 '13 at 19:27