Talk:Social science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


New social networking navbox[edit]

We're putting together a new navbox called "Social networking". We have no idea what we're doing and would welcome some help organizing the groups.

Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

ethnocentric[edit]

Maybe I'm crazy or out of line, but I really feel like this page is a little heavily focused on the development of scientific thought on society in Europe only and sort of leaves out what people in other places might have been scientifically thinking about society when Diderot was doing his deal. I admit I haven't read the whole page, but this is my impression after reading the first couple sections. 70.185.112.106 (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Psychiatry?[edit]

I sort of echo the concerns of the commenter above re: Psychology on the issue of whether psychiatry should be mentioned. Historically, it's only the last 30 years or so that psychiatry has embraced a more biomedical orientation, whereas before it was much more explicitly talking-cure focused, where that was possible anyways. The problem with these level 2 articles is that they are not particularly amenable to finding secondary sources, i think. it may be possible to find quotes calling psychiatry a social science or denying that it is, but my suspicion is that these will not be the focus of an article, because the term "social science", again like many of the level 2 article terms, is fairly weak category-wise. Im not sure how to address this, but I suspect it's why there are a few level 2s that are in desperate need of revision. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 17:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't quite see what exactly your problem is right now. From what you've written I can only infer that, basically, you're in doubt as to the proper status of psychiatry yourself?! But if you're in doubt, why then have it included in the first place? With all due respect, this makes no sense at all. Based on that, we could just as well include dozens of disciplines that appear to be border cases in whatever regard. But why would one do that and what for? At least you'll agree that psychiatry is a branch of medicine proper (psychology isn't!) and psychiatrists, in most places, will almost always tend to be ordinarily trained MDs. They are authorized to (and do) prescribe drugs! If this isn't application, what is? Psychologists (like linguists, anthropologists, ...), by the way, again aren't -- unless they happen to be an MD at the same time, of course.
Merely have a look at the section titled Methodology and explain to me, convincingly, how/where psychiatry fits in there. And if so, why that would then still exclude geriatrics, pediatrics, sexual medicine, ... in short, all of medicine. Zero Thrust (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
In some areas, psychologists can prescribe drugs (though in some places, a prescription is not needed to buy drugs from a pharmacy).
And yes, i agree with you that medicine is a social science. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 04:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
(not purely a social science, but it's got elements of it anyway. particularly clinical practice.) -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 04:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Social science a science?[edit]

I've noticed that the first statement shies away from the referring to it as a science (rather an "academic discipline"). There is that "part of a series on science" template, the Science article mentioning it and File:The Scientific Universe.png. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Social science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Charness's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Charness has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


1) As per "economic imperialism" (mentioned twice, separately), I might mention that the effort by economists to include ideas from other disciplines has helped to improve understand of phenomena at the boundaries of economics with other disciplines.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Charness has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Charness, Gary & Masclet, David & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2013. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt3858888w, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Psychology in the Introduction[edit]

Can we discuss where, or if, this should be placed in the introduction? I contend that as psychology should be placed where it was in my edit, as in most dictionary definitions of social science that include a list of social sciences, it is included. Additionally, with some exceptions for biopsychology, academic institutions generally classify it as a social science as well. I can see why it doesn't fit quite as easily as economics and sociology, but it fits here better than in natural sciences, and it seems a categorization is desired, as is done in Template:Science. Dayshade (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

As long as it has been included in multiple dictionary definitions then I do not see why it shouldn't be placed in the introduction. My question however is why is Freud is not included in the psychology part of the article since he did attribute things to that community DaltonSchultz (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Relationship to Social engineering[edit]

I think that it would good if we could address the relationship of Social Engg. to the social sciences.

Or do you think I should take this to the Political Science page?

Aditya 21:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Social science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Social science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View template added in Oct 2017 - propose removing it[edit]

In October 2017, user Aristotele1982 added the POV-lead template, disputing the "neutrality" of the introduction's point of view. There was no discussion of it on this talk page; the page history shows the comment "this article misleadingly suggests that the term science in "Social Sciences" is equivalent to Science as used in physics and other disciplines that use scientific method to test hypothesis. Whether or not sociology or economy are sciences is debatable". The article does not, as far as I can see, state this explicitly; it seems to be the very existence of the article on "social science" that is objected to. Since "social science" is a long established term, well sourced in this article, I propose we remove the POV template. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Since that user will not discuss this here, just saying on their own talk page that the status of 'social sciences' is disputed, despite the concept being about 200 years old, and is not suggesting any improvements to the article, I'm going to remove the template. There is nothing about the article that isn't 'neutral'. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I second removing the template.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Human science[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not merged. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

These two topics appear to be mostly the same thing, and cover broadly the same fields. If it's just that the specific classification used for "human sciences" is slightly different then it could be mentioned in Social science somewhere. Jc86035 (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm....There is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to the topic and some degrees in it are offered, and from the information I can glean through these, human science is an independent theme, significantly broader than social science.
If not merged, the Human science article needs a lot of cleanup. Clean Copytalk 16:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Though personally I've never heard of human science (and I'm a social scientist), my suspicion is that the two terms represent two distinct traditions for organizing the relationships between things like sociology, anthropology, history, etc. Judging from the article, "human science" also includes biological studies, which the social sciences don't generally include as a core part of their understanding. I'll look around for a source that distinguishes the two, though for now I'd recommend not merging. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 18:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as well. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 05:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose social science is the commonly used term - which implies the merged article would have that name (and the proposal to merge human sciences into this one further supports that). But an article on social science can impossibly include (e.g.) biochemistry (which is not part of any social science, but is listed as part of the human sciences). Arnoutf (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Gonna have to Oppose. Social science doesn't really have much to do with natural science like biology, and doesn't necessarily have to be about humans (animal phycology, economics, etc.) but human sciences includes natural sciences (biology), as well as excludes non-human relationships. WildComet (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Also opposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18langleyg (talkcontribs) 10:58, May 7, 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. I am in general agreement with User:mathmitch7 - as a ss, I've also never heard the term, but it is plausible there's a minority of scholars who prefer this term for some reasons (also, see humanities, another related concept). A bit of searching did find an academic work ([1]) that provides a helpful clarification: "All contemporary classifiers divide the human sciences into the humanities and social sciences." While it is just a working paper (hence, possibly non-peer reviewed) it make sense to me, and I suggest we include the note on relation between those three fields (hs, ss, and a&h) in all relevant articles, using this paper as a reference (unless someone finds a contradictory and more reliable source?). PS. Ping User:Jc86035 - this merge has been open for almost a year and there's no support. Would you like to withdraw it, and or offer further comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expansion of Education?[edit]

As a student pursuing sociology as a degree it would be great to have an expansion in this section so that others will know what to do with their degrees after graduating. Overall the article was very informative but developing that section might help out a bit more. Raisa.karim (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Social sciences for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Social sciences is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Social sciences (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 21:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


Idiosyncratic listings[edit]

This article lists social sciences, but the list seems rather idiosyncratic. It includes musicology, which I have never seen elsewhere listed as a social science, and social history, which is normally seen as a humanities subject rather than a science. Vorbee (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sociology[edit]

Under the sociology section, should there be more info regarding sub fields? Or is it better to leave the link for the Wikipedia page of sociology regarding sub fields?


Ccarson2 (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Cory C

What are some examples of how sociology can be studied? For example, how can we study sociology around us, in our community? --Yvette 282 (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Rating[edit]

Hello all. I am a newbie to the Wikipedia world and learning as I go. Is this article rated? Where can I find the rating for it?

Kbier2 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Kendra Bierman, 9/24/2020

Methods[edit]

There are some missing sociological methods here that I noticed. Is it just supposed to be found in the sociology page or should it also be included here?

Cnvillal (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

Talking as someone who teaches history (medieval and early modern) at the University, I find it improper to classify history as a social science. A general glance at the article confirms to me that it is in need of substantial revision. The major debate right now is to whether sociology is indeed a science, considered that the sociologist is always part of the society he/she analysis and social processes cannot be isolated from historical actors, on which latter there is of course no science. The article never even mention this problem. Before going on adding the NPOV, I would be keen on discussing this matter.--80.147.11.76 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)