Welcome to Gaia! ::

This is precisely the suffering I'm talking about; because of the way it's presented to outsiders, people outside social science don't believe that social scientists actually can make rigorous statements. You dismiss it automatically. But have you actually read any papers on it? Or are you going by the rehashes that you read in the news?

As for advertising, I'm not going to say that it's impossible, but it certainly is not in any sense easy to get correct information "immediately" regarding high-level mathematics and physics. Statements in mathematics and physics carry so much information in them, and deal with things so far from the average layperson's experience and intuition, that you'd have to write a book to translate into what a layperson can immediately grasp. This is not the fault of mathematicians or physicists. See the thread I wrote about complicated theories; it's a situation intrinsic to academic progress.

That doesn't stop biology or chemistry. There are plenty of unfortunate variables in those fields, but results can still be obtained by being careful. Similarly with the social sciences. The statistical precision might be a bit lower, but that's a quantitative difference, and as methodology gets better and accessible data sets get larger, that difference will decrease. There is no significant qualitative difference.

*I still don't believe I am motivated enough to say that I honestly feel that way. -_- Plus, I think it sounds too arrogant and it's better to not say things like that. I think it is always best to try to explain things to people in the easiest way to understand. It may be difficult to think of how, but I think it's possible to be accurate and concise with just words and use a combination of examples, pictures and things that people won't understand immediately. To do this takes some work and it shouldn't be dismissed lightly.

That is a very good point! It provides opportunities for learning outside of what may be one's main field of interest.

I think a lot of people want to pretend to know more than they do anyway, and often in some research topics the people who can publish first are rewarded although their work is less rigorous. I don't fault them because someone needs to work on those things, but I would probably like to work on something that is not in that category because the pressure sounds rough. However some people in those fields are good enough that they are able to do rigorous work and still get it first. They deserve the recognition.

(BTW publicity is also good for getting science funding, which does not always have to be used wastefully. I had a friend who was going to go into science advising in politics which is how I know a lot of this.)

Isn't a lot of physics attempting to approximate qualitative properties with quantitative ones? So is it necessary to make the distinction between qualitative and quantitative, except when you're discussing social sciences? Probably very little progress can be made in the social sciences unless you see them as distinct but in some parts of physics it's fundamentally possible to get qualitative from quantitative.

I see your point, but that doesn't mean you can't learn anything from it, despite some of the major errors they make, they can be helpful.

I learned a lot about physics, not by reading complex equations, and problems, Though they are helpful, I prefer explanations and diagrams, they make things easier to understand.

I know, the diagrams explain them, and the equations show us why it happens, or how it's like it is.