the dialectic about the social sciences and hard (lab) sciences is similar to the theoretical - applied dialectic that takes place in the hard sciences themselves. then, even in the social sciences, there are the dialectics about quantitative versus qualitative science. in all, the social scientists view the hard (lab) scientists and test tube staring calculating tunnel vision elitists, while the hard (lab) scientists view the social scientists as fuzzy speculators.
I prefer tarot cards.
Originally posted by coquetteThis is not a "view" based on opinion. I have a great interest in the social sciences, particularly political science, but I don't see the logic behind a social science trying to find academic merit by tagging the word science at the end of it, particularly since I know of no testable hypotheses that any social science has ever put forward, which is the basis of any science, and furthermore I feel that political science and the like have enough merit to stand on their own values without seeking a label I see as inaccurately aplied and unnecessary.
the dialectic about the social sciences and hard (lab) sciences is similar to the theoretical - applied dialectic that takes place in the hard sciences themselves. then, even in the social sciences, there are the dialectics about quantitative versus qualitative science. in all, the social scientists view the hard (lab) scientists and test tube staring calcu ...[text shortened]... hard (lab) scientists view the social scientists as fuzzy speculators.
I prefer tarot cards.
Now as I said, another thread on this would be very interesting if you want to get into it, but for the moment I fear we may be hijacking this one and veering off course.
Originally posted by coquetteFurthermore, we in the lab test the hypotheses of the theoreticians, it is a symbiotic thing. No such symbiosis exists between the "hard" scientists and the social "scientists".
the dialectic about the social sciences and hard (lab) sciences is similar to the theoretical - applied dialectic that takes place in the hard sciences themselves. then, even in the social sciences, there are the dialectics about quantitative versus qualitative science. in all, the social scientists view the hard (lab) scientists and test tube staring calcu ...[text shortened]... hard (lab) scientists view the social scientists as fuzzy speculators.
I prefer tarot cards.
Originally posted by MexicoOnly in old Commonwealth countries. When I've been to Canada both systems seemed to be used... Don't know what's it like in schools.
Just thought I'd ask a quick question....
Is it only the USA that still uses Imperial measurements?. I know Ireland completely switched over recently. And all of Europe is Metric. As is Australia. What about (aboot) Canada?, South America etc.....
Originally posted by serigadoCGS then. But my point is that world standard might be a bit too agressive. Just as MKS isn't really that good at all instances I don't think any other unit system would be.
Of course I'm not talking about units in theoretical physics , where we can just do c=1 ou h=1 as we please.
I'm talking adopting the MKS or CGS system as world standard.
Originally posted by adam warlockfor me, CGS and MKS in the exact same thing.
CGS then. But my point is that world standard might be a bit too agressive. Just as MKS isn't really that good at all instances I don't think any other unit system would be.
I'm talking about the system people use in their everyday life. In different situations, they might use the "mega, giga, tera, mili, pico, femto" or whatever suffix they wanted (that's what differ CGS form MKS).
What I want to defend is the use of the same kind of units (liters vs gallon, meter/cm vs feet, etc)
I'm tired of listening things like "this guy is 6 feet tall", and having no clue of whether is taller or shorter then me...
It's hard to change people who were already educated in a system, but it's time for children all learn the same units!
Originally posted by serigadoYeah everybody around here talks in feet and lb and that's just wrong.
for me, CGS and MKS in the exact same thing.
I'm talking about the system people use in their everyday life. In different situations, they might use the "mega, giga, tera, mili, pico, femto" or whatever suffix they wanted (that's what differ CGS form MKS).
What I want to defend is the use of the same kind of units (liters vs gallon, meter/cm vs feet, etc) ...[text shortened]... were already educated in a system, but it's time for children all learn the same units!
But the gaussian system and the SI system don't differ only in prefixes. A lot of equations have different forms on the different systems. Sometimes in books the author will say something "I'll use such system because on this system the equations are more simple." And then you get another book were this other author uses a different system because the equations are more simple in that system. Freaky to say the least!
But why is there not a metric system in time measurements?
60 seconds a minute; 60 minutes an hour; 24 hours a day and night, 7 days a week; 28, 29, 30, or 31 days a month, 4 week and change is a month, 12 month a year, no year zero. Only sub-seconds are metric.
I think Napoleon Bonaparte (french for 'the best part of Napoleon'?) tried to introduce 100 seconds a minute and 100 minutes an hour and 10 hour day and 10 hour night. And hold to it for a decade or something.
Originally posted by MexicoThe UK is mixed. SI is taught in schools, and is officially used in most cases. But road signs and speed limits are in miles, most people would think of their own height in feet and their weight in stones. And, of course, beer is served in pints.
Just thought I'd ask a quick question....
Is it only the USA that still uses Imperial measurements?. I know Ireland completely switched over recently. And all of Europe is Metric. As is Australia. What about (aboot) Canada?, South America etc.....
Originally posted by serigadobecause theyre american ? 😛
Fahrenheit is the most stupid scale invented by men since creation.
make 32 as the melting point of water, 100 as your own personal temperature, and voila.
Unfortunately the guy had a little fever when he did it, so the average body temperature is really 98F...
What's the sense of this scale? It's the least scientific thing I know... And why the hell some still use it??