As they should!

Our founding fathers fought back against their government. At the very least they would wonder why people aren’t gathering in mobs outside the homes and offices of legislators demanding change.

And? What about non-Zionist non-corporate sources that back the same narrative? Would you see that as any different?

Why do you need “Zionist corporate” in that post? Any media calling this a “preemptive strike” are pushing a bs narrative.

In 1992 I thought the GOP was being hyperbolic about Bill Clinton’s history of sexual predation. Im not proud of that.

This isn’t like understanding a child’s game so I would say your baseball analogy is a false equivalence.

I’m not qualified enough to know what science is (ad hominem)

That isn’t ad hominem. Suggesting that the roots of your misunderstanding is due to your lack of experience or education in the field is not a personal attack. I am also not making an emotional appeal which is an alternate form of ad hominem.

Ad hominem would be if I suggested you couldn’t have an understanding because you are stupid (which I am absolutely in no way suggesting that you are unintelligent). I have not done this. I have suggested your lack of expertise in the field might be a good reason for you to question your own conclusions.

directing me to read an entire field of philosophy that for all I know has its entire existence bent towards proving that the social sciences are sciences exactly in the same way that natural sciences are

You dont need to become an expert but if you want to understand what we believe science is this is the place to start as the other place is a terminal degree in a science field which would be silly to suggest. The philosophy of science is the best field for you to get the answers to the uncertainty you have in your understanding

This is also not an example of ad hominem.

Why not read about the philosophy of science to expand your understanding? Why do you need to do it because I proved something to you?

No one is “pretending” anything.

You literally have no experience or knowledge to determine what science is and is not since you have no background in any form of it.

Im sorry if the above offends you but it is the xase that a lack of education and/or experience in a field does mean you aren’t going to be someone who has an understanding of it.

If ypu are interested in learning why these are seen as sciences consider looking into the philosophy of science. You might be surprised what you learn when you try to.

The French person talked about killing them outside their home.

The guy in the article lost a french fry while eating in the space seagulls live. The only pests there are humans.

Was seagull guy going to starve because he lost a single french fry? No, he wasn’t. He killed a seagull because he’s a piece of shit. If you don’t want seagulls to eat your food maybe don’t eat in their home.

Both were examples of random completely unnecessary killings and it is messed up that you think this is ok. If a kid was killing animals just because we would place them in therapy.

We tend to shop for days worth of food at a time.

Is it less prone to crash? Is it any better overall? I liked the initial game and the tv show to a lesser degree.

i have a degree, but not in science. Does that make me unqualified to state that the field of psychology, and most other social sciences lack the epistemic rigor of something like physics or biology and therefore are not real sciences?

That would depend on your actual field. If you had a masters or phd focusing on the philosophy of science, then yes. If you have a degree in anything else I would suggest considering that your lack of experience within science might be what is behind your misconception.

My education was in political science and international relations. At the undergraduate level for most programs political science is more pre-law or governmental studies and does not seem like a science. When you go for your masters it suddenly become very much a statistcal science.

What the anti-science (not you) ,science agnostic (not you), and those without a background in science (this is you) typically miss is that not all sciences are created equal. Things that rely on metastudies, as many social sciences do, typically will be less conclusive than say an experiment that can be observed directly, but that doesn’t mean both are not science.

Because the other poster is talking about both.

The fact specific animals, not pests, are being targeted isn’t a factor. If I kill an animal just gecause it is a random killing.

A rat that isn’t in your home or your eating your crops is not a pest. It is another animal and killing it because you see it on the street is a random killing.

Economists aren’t trying to predict the future. That’s a misconception that is done away with in the first few days of intro.

deleted by creator

Im asking these questions to asses what you actually understand science to be.

The term “social science” reeks of insecurity to me because other than using the scientific method, they are not a sciences at all, but I guess academics needed a way to to defend themselves from the bullying physicists.

Do you have a degree, or better yet a terminal degree in a science field? What is your actual academic experience in doing social science experiments?

Don’t apologize for not having the same learning styles that other poster has.

That’s silly as sometimes video is preferable especially for things like repair and “how-to” instructions.

Not everyone has the same learning style you do.

Again Im talking about the French guy I replied to not the person in the article.

A methodology with reproducible experiments and results.

And why don’t you think psychology fits this?

What makes something a science?