On 11/29/2025 at 6:45 PM, Phi for All said:

I would call this approach technology, which is just more tools made from the knowledge science discovers. Science doesn't invent anything.

One problem we have with technology is trust. We should be able to devise a voting system that is secure, scalable, and accessible. Since the start of the millenium, however, the voting systems in the USA have come under almost constant fire from accusations of fraud. It's gotten so bad in the last 25 years that I'm not sure there is any person or group who can offer a solution, no matter how plausible it is.

Okay. We can work with "technology, which is just more tools made from the knowledge science discovers. "

I've heard arguments that had not for science, we wouldn't be sitting at computers, using cell phones, GPS, or many, many other things.

Do you credit science with this technology?

On 12/1/2025 at 7:49 PM, studiot said:

I glad you found the quote interesting.

However I'm not sure you cottoned on to its significance, perhaps due that the forum your quote came from (I has a quick look around there and found it very shallow and unimpressive)
The important message was not about who said it (It was definitely Faraday) it was that no one could (or did) predict the course of (human) history subsequent to the nascent science of electricity that was represented as a baby, any more than anyone could tell whether that baby could turn out to be a Ghandi or a Hitler or a Bill Gates or just Joe Soap.

Similarly all those discoveries or inventions listed had a major impact on subsequent human society, and sorry swansont, I disagree with your interpretation of the word Science.

Perhaps we should all agree both what is meant by Science and what the OP means by 'reach', as several have asked.

I understand Science to mean "An organised body of knowledge" without any restriction on what that knowledge is about.

I understand the OP to be interested in a body of knowledge would allow us (human society) to move on from our present state and situation to an improved and improving one.

By reach I understand a request, similar to the woman (who was not a dullhead) who asked Faraday about the baby, as to how far this might progress.

So perhaps King Kobra would like to clarify my understanding.

Had it not been for the "discovery of electricity", would we be talking about having watched Batman and Robin on television, or hearing Diana Ross' beautiful voice singing "Stop! In the name of love Before you break my heart"?

We credit science for the advancements made over the centuries... whether good or bad.

We don't want to take a biased position to detach an invention from science, because we discovered that it may not be the best product yet.

Like plastics.

The world's first fully synthetic plastic was Bakelite, invented in New York in 1907, by Leo Baekeland [a Belgian chemist] who coined the term "plastics".

Science has been fundamental to the creation, development, and ongoing transformation of plastics. The journey began in the 19th century with early discoveries like nitrocellulose and celluloid, followed by the invention of the first fully synthetic plastic, Bakelite, in 1907 by Leo Baekeland, who coined the term "plastics".[1][2] This breakthrough, along with subsequent scientific advancements, led to the mass production of diverse polymers such as nylon, polyethylene, polystyrene, and PVC, which became essential materials in everyday life and critical to wartime innovation.[2][3][4] The foundational work of chemists like Hermann Staudinger, known as the "father of polymer chemistry," and Herman Mark, the "father of polymer physics," established the scientific principles behind polymer science, enabling the design of materials with tailored properties.[1]

• The development of synthetic polymers was driven by scientific research, with chemists deliberately designing materials to meet specific needs, such as replacing scarce natural resources like rubber and silk during World War II.[2][4]

• Scientific innovation led to the creation of high-performance plastics like Teflon, used in the atomic bomb, and Kevlar, capable of stopping bullets, demonstrating the profound impact of polymer science on technology and safety.[3][4]

• In response to the environmental crisis caused by plastic pollution, contemporary science is now focused on developing solutions, including plastics that can be programmed to break down after a specific lifespan, inspired by natural polymers like DNA and RNA.[5][6]

• Researchers are exploring new methods to chemically recycle plastics by breaking their tough bonds in a controlled way, with promising discoveries such as a polymer that can be broken down into its original components using a mild acidic solution at room temperature, enabling a circular economy.[7][8]

• Efforts are also underway to create biodegradable and sustainable plastics from renewable biological sources, such as corn starch, to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and mitigate environmental harm.[9]

So, I think you are on track with where I'm coming from. 👍

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

People only really trust people who can help them make enough money to future proof their life, that's how con-artist's make a living.

Trust in science only goes so far and even a scientist has a price they're willing to pay, in terms of trust.

Would you say then, it boils down to human efforts, and whether or not those efforts are not only unselfish, but capable enough?

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why did you put this in the 'ethics' forum?

It's a discussion of an ethical topic relating to science, medicine, religion, and so on.

I didn't want it restricted to science or philosophy. Or religion.

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think @studiot point about Assimov's second foundation is a good example of an ethical solution; as AI gets more and more powerful at predicting humanities vagaries, an ethically bias free algorithm for it to run thing's for us, would be best for all of us, as it would remove the emotion from deciding the moral path needed.

It sounds like you have another war on your hands.

Will that end all wars? It seem more like starting a new one, that involves a battle of minds.

5 hours ago, KingKobra said:

Would you say then, it boils down to human efforts, and whether or not those efforts are not only unselfish, but capable enough?

Capable of what? Please clarify your question.

5 hours ago, KingKobra said:

It's a discussion of an ethical topic relating to science, medicine, religion, and so on.

I didn't want it restricted to science or philosophy. Or religion.

How does ethics differ from philosophy, in your question?

5 hours ago, KingKobra said:

It sounds like you have another war on your hands.

Will that end all wars? It seem more like starting a new one, that involves a battle of minds.

Assimov's 2nd foundation was based on a sentient robot that was 'telepathic' and guided by the 4 law's of robotics in his action's, which would automatically lead to the fewest dead humans in any given scenario.

Some of which maybe an unavoidable war.

8 hours ago, KingKobra said:

Okay. We can work with "technology, which is just more tools made from the knowledge science discovers. "

I've heard arguments that had not for science, we wouldn't be sitting at computers, using cell phones, GPS, or many, many other things.

Art doesn't create paintings or sculptures. Art provides a framework for creative endeavors, a methodology for mixing colors, using light and darkness, and how to choose media that best suit those endeavors. Artists and others use these tools to make what we call art.

Similarly, science doesn't create computers, cell phones, or GPS. Science is the path, the way to organize a framework for technological or cosmological study and practice. I think it's important to distinguish between the discipline as a whole and the individual endeavors that use its methods to ensure success.

7 hours ago, KingKobra said:

It's a discussion of an ethical topic relating to science, medicine, religion, and so on.

I didn't want it restricted to science or philosophy. Or religion.

Id say it's a question of practical ethics - how do societies stuff genies back into the bottles? Scientists can't generally claw back the tech consequences of their discoveries (a stern letter from Einstein or Fermi would not have stopped nuclear weapon development). And technologists are, like most people, needing a paycheck and inclined to rationalize their participation in the process. So that leaves...(Holds nose, suppresses gag reflex)...political solutions combined with global treaties.

Things like the Megatons to Megawatts treaty were a start. Or the major legal and political victories against PFAS, which hopefully will continue.

Ethical solutions on such technologies will be slow painful and ugly processes in courts and legislative chambers. Thanks to the extremely thick skulls of many in legislative chambers, incidents of massive death will probably take place before they awaken to some of these problems. Others are just corrupt, and that will mean getting corporate money out of political campaigns. Possibly, we're all f--ed.

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Art doesn't create paintings or sculptures. Art provides a framework for creative endeavors, a methodology for mixing colors, using light and darkness, and how to choose media that best suit those endeavors. Artists and others use these tools to make what we call art.

Similarly, science doesn't create computers, cell phones, or GPS. Science is the path, the way to organize a framework for technological or cosmological study and practice. I think it's important to distinguish between the discipline as a whole and the individual endeavors that use its methods to ensure success.

Isn't it strange how often the word 'path' appears in a Venn diagram of humanity and what we learned from history...

On 12/3/2025 at 1:20 AM, KingKobra said:

I've heard arguments that had not for science, we wouldn't be sitting at computers, using cell phones, GPS, or many, many other things.

Do you credit science with this technology?

Without the science we wouldn’t have the technology. It’s not like you’re going to stumble on cell phones, etc. by accident.

On 12/3/2025 at 10:48 AM, Phi for All said:

Art doesn't create paintings or sculptures. Art provides a framework for creative endeavors, a methodology for mixing colors, using light and darkness, and how to choose media that best suit those endeavors. Artists and others use these tools to make what we call art.

Similarly, science doesn't create computers, cell phones, or GPS. Science is the path, the way to organize a framework for technological or cosmological study and practice. I think it's important to distinguish between the discipline as a whole and the individual endeavors that use its methods to ensure success.

How far reaching is art? Art is limited in this or that area.

I'm not seeing the problem. What is the problem you are seeing?

In the Op I said

Science research and experiments have achieved a great deal.

Science though, has its limits.

How limited is science, when it comes to big, and important problems facing the world today

Science doesn't seem very far reaching, when it comes to what matters most.

I don't see the problem, and I don't want to spend time arguing on what is not, IMO, an issue.

So, pardon me please for not understanding the problem you are having.

Perhaps, if I do at some point, we can discuss it.

On 12/3/2025 at 9:22 AM, dimreepr said:

Capable of what? Please clarify your question.

What we were just talking about.

On 12/3/2025 at 9:22 AM, dimreepr said:

How does ethics differ from philosophy, in your question?

Science and religion does differ from philosophy. Each of these involve ethics in some way.

I can't post an image to show you, but if you place ETHICS in the center, and place SCIENCE above; RELIGION bottom left; PHILOSOPHY bottom right, you can draw a circle around ETHICS and SCIENCE; you can draw a circle around ETHICS and RELIGION; you can draw a circle around ETHICS and PHILOSOPHY.

However, you can't do that is you only have PHILOSOPHY or ETHICS.

4 hours ago, KingKobra said:

How far reaching is art? Art is limited in this or that area.

The thing about Art is that it can and does say or depict things more staid folks cannot or do not because of their constraints.

I also think that the americans in particular define Science in the manner after Charles S Peirce.
That is unreasonably constricted IMHO.

Edited December 7Dec 7 by studiot

6 hours ago, KingKobra said:

How far reaching is art? Art is limited in this or that area.

I'm not seeing the problem. What is the problem you are seeing?

In the Op I said

I don't see the problem, and I don't want to spend time arguing on what is not, IMO, an issue.

So, pardon me please for not understanding the problem you are having.

Perhaps, if I do at some point, we can discuss it.

What we were just talking about.

Science and religion does differ from philosophy. Each of these involve ethics in some way.

I can't post an image to show you, but if you place ETHICS in the center, and place SCIENCE above; RELIGION bottom left; PHILOSOPHY bottom right, you can draw a circle around ETHICS and SCIENCE; you can draw a circle around ETHICS and RELIGION; you can draw a circle around ETHICS and PHILOSOPHY.

However, you can't do that is you only have PHILOSOPHY or ETHICS.

The problem you are having is, imagining science has a soul and is an entity in and of itself.

6 hours ago, KingKobra said:

Science and religion does differ from philosophy. Each of these involve ethics in some way.

You've got that completely backwards, neither science or religion need ethics:

Science, bc 'it' (not really a thing) has no interest in ethics.

Religion, bc it has already decided the correct moral path.

Philosophy is willing too challenge the correct moral path, with a mortality likelyhood score, which seems fair... 🤔

6 hours ago, KingKobra said:

However, you can't do that is you only have PHILOSOPHY or ETHICS.

We're humans, and on average that's all we have, if we're lucky; I'd hate to live in Ukraine ATM... 🙄

But, if science is on our side, perhaps, it would mean less of 'us' would die... 😇

Edited December 7Dec 7 by dimreepr

7 hours ago, KingKobra said:

How far reaching is art? Art is limited in this or that area.

I'm not seeing the problem. What is the problem you are seeing?

In the Op I said

I don't see the problem, and I don't want to spend time arguing on what is not, IMO, an issue.

So, pardon me please for not understanding the problem you are having.

Perhaps, if I do at some point, we can discuss it.

What we were just talking about.

Science and religion does differ from philosophy. Each of these involve ethics in some way.

I can't post an image to show you, but if you place ETHICS in the center, and place SCIENCE above; RELIGION bottom left; PHILOSOPHY bottom right, you can draw a circle around ETHICS and SCIENCE; you can draw a circle around ETHICS and RELIGION; you can draw a circle around ETHICS and PHILOSOPHY.

However, you can't do that is you only have PHILOSOPHY or ETHICS.

One problem, I think, is that you seem to want to attribute to disciplines like science or art results that are due to the application of these disciplines by people.

Another is that your statement about science not being "far reaching when it comes to what matters most" sounds like a criticism of it, but far too vague to enable a response, because you have not specified what you mean by "what matters most". As science is the study of understanding the natural world, it is obviously not going to help if what you consider "matters most" isn't something to do with natural world.

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

One problem, I think, is that you seem to want to attribute to disciplines like science or art results that are due to the application of these disciplines by people.

To add to this - science can inform us in many ways, but can’t compel people to act. We see this currently in the US, where science is being ignored because it conflicts with personal and political agendas.

Science does not have agency by itself. Its influence can be broad or narrow, but that’s constrained by the collective will of people.

On 11/28/2025 at 6:22 PM, KingKobra said:

People worry about things that affect them on a personal and family level.

Science doesn't seem very far reaching, when it comes to what matters most.

Is there anything that has more reach, when it comes to the issues currently affecting the world on a global scale? If not science, what?

Last weekend I was home doing nothing in particular when my phone rang, so I answered it, and became immediately furious. I couldn't believe that another a**hole robocaller was actually harassing me on a Sunday. Normally I get up to 25 phone calls a day from those jerks and have a land line which makes blocking calls difficult, so I don't answer unless I know the number. But not on Sundays -- never on Sundays. When I finally got a live person on the phone, I asked him if he had no manners at all -- calling on a Sunday. He denied that it was Sunday. I didn't believe him.

After I cooled down, I considered that it may not have been a Sunday where he was, because he could have been anywhere around the world. He did not deny that calling on a Sunday was quite rude. Then I wondered if a right for privacy on Sunday is a global idea -- it is certainly a private and personal idea. Would this be considered "far reaching", because it certainly did not come from science.

Gee

59 minutes ago, Gees said:

After I cooled down, I considered that it may not have been a Sunday where he was, because he could have been anywhere around the world. He did not deny that calling on a Sunday was quite rude. Then I wondered if a right for privacy on Sunday is a global idea -- it is certainly a private and personal idea. Would this be considered "far reaching", because it certainly did not come from science.

Not only that but large part of the world population set aside other day(s) as holy or a day of rest or whatever.

1 hour ago, Gees said:

After I cooled down, I considered that it may not have been a Sunday where he was, because he could have been anywhere around the world. He did not deny that calling on a Sunday was quite rude. Then I wondered if a right for privacy on Sunday is a global idea -- it is certainly a private and personal idea. Would this be considered "far reaching", because it certainly did not come from science.

That reminds me of a Louis CK joke, where he claims Christianity won, and when challenged he simply asks, what date is it ?

When we consider "far reaching" literally then sure that could be argued, but it's a waiting game and science is coming hard and eccelerating.

How far reaching is science? He asked on a computer from a different countery... 🙄

On 12/7/2025 at 10:13 AM, dimreepr said:

The problem you are having is, imagining science has a soul and is an entity in and of itself.

You've got that completely backwards, neither science or religion need ethics:

Science, bc 'it' (not really a thing) has no interest in ethics.

Religion, bc it has already decided the correct moral path.

Philosophy is willing too challenge the correct moral path, with a mortality likelyhood score, which seems fair... 🤔

We're humans, and on average that's all we have, if we're lucky; I'd hate to live in Ukraine ATM... 🙄

But, if science is on our side, perhaps, it would mean less of 'us' would die... 😇

I don't know how you managed to imagine that I imagined something that I have never said, but we humans do have wild imaginations.

Anything that is used by man, can be considered a tool.

I see science as a tool in humans hands. Tools do not have a soul.

Science functions as a powerful tool for understanding the natural world, enabling predictions, guiding technological innovation, and informing decision-making across various fields.

My question relates to the far reaching use of this tool.

I think that is something basic to understand, so to help us move forward, let's ask this question:

Can science be understood as a dynamic and evolving tool for inquiry, capable of addressing complex challenges in areas like public health, education, and environmental sustainability?

Those who say yes, let's talk.

Those who say no, please explain your answer in a clear detailed manner. Thanks.

On 12/7/2025 at 10:13 AM, dimreepr said:

You've got that completely backwards, neither science or religion need ethics:

Science, bc 'it' (not really a thing) has no interest in ethics.

Religion, bc it has already decided the correct moral path.

Philosophy is willing too challenge the correct moral path, with a mortality likelyhood score, which seems fair... 🤔

There is ethics in science.

Ethics in science refers to the principles and standards of conduct that guide researchers in their professional practices, ensuring the integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness of scientific knowledge. [1][2]

There is ethics in religion.

There is ethics in philosophy.

Ethics is a central branch of philosophy.

16 minutes ago, KingKobra said:

Tools do not have a soul.

How would you define a soul?

On 12/7/2025 at 10:13 AM, dimreepr said:

But, if science is on our side, perhaps, it would mean less of 'us' would die... 😇

Ah, good. Now we are actually talking.

I say less of us would die, if more people submitted to God's government, and lived by God's standards.

I can provide the proof of that.

For starters, the amount diseases in the world at present, would be nearly zero, if people submitted to Christ as their governor.

Actually, God's government has more far reaching power than and system man can structure.

Science has been around for centuries, and evidence shows that the problems of the world are increasing.

Can God's government change all of that? Yes.

On 12/7/2025 at 11:20 AM, exchemist said:

One problem, I think, is that you seem to want to attribute to disciplines like science or art results that are due to the application of these disciplines by people.

Another is that your statement about science not being "far reaching when it comes to what matters most" sounds like a criticism of it, but far too vague to enable a response, because you have not specified what you mean by "what matters most". As science is the study of understanding the natural world, it is obviously not going to help if what you consider "matters most" isn't something to do with natural world.

"Vague"? "Have not specified what you mean by "what matters most""?

This is not vague, and it also specifies what I mean by "what matters most".

How limited is science, when it comes to big, and important problems facing the world today, such as wars, terrorism, violent crime, anger issues, domestic and child abuse, sexual assaults, governmental corruption, etc. to name just a few.

People worry about things that affect them on a personal and family level.

Science doesn't seem very far reaching, when it comes to what matters most.

Perhaps you read it a bit too quickly, or were distracted by what the thoughts that began to form when you read the title. IDK

What I wrote is quite clear, I'm sure.

4 minutes ago, KingKobra said:

I say less of us would die, if more people submitted to God's government, and lived by God's standards.

I can provide the proof of that.

Is this the purpose of this thread, to preach your polluted version of Christianity? I thought you were interested in science. This is just disgusting.

7 minutes ago, KingKobra said:

For starters, the amount diseases in the world at present, would be nearly zero, if people submitted to Christ as their governor.

Actually, God's government has more far reaching power than and system man can structure.

Science has been around for centuries, and evidence shows that the problems of the world are increasing.

Can God's government change all of that? Yes.

Your hands wave too much when you're trying to use reason. Nobody here is interested in your preaching, only what you can support with actual evidence. Anybody can claim their interpretations on religion are the Truth.

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

Is this the purpose of this thread, to preach your polluted version of Christianity? I thought you were interested in science. This is just disgusting.

No, I started the thread to highlight a few facts that misinformed people are unaware of.

Is it wrong for me to do so.

Being interested in science does not mean ignoring everything else, including available facts, does it.

That would be being one-sided, and closedminded.

I'm neither.

I chose the sub-forum, because it is for discussion of ethical topics relating to science, medicine, religion, and so on.

I did not create these. The administrators did.

I actually want to show the facts regarding what I said, but I plan to post that under the religion subforum.

That's not a problem, is it?

I also wanted to discuss a couple ideas that scientists have about the cosmos, and compare that with what is observable, and practical.

Where would you suggest I post something of that nature?

Are you angry, BTW?

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Your hands wave too much when you're trying to use reason. Nobody here is interested in your preaching, only what you can support with actual evidence. Anybody can claim their interpretations on religion are the Truth.

Hand wave?

What do you mean?

I am going to provide the evidence. In another thread of course.

In the religion subforum.

You don't have to read it if you aren't interested. That's okay.

Are you interested only in science, or you just have no interests whatsoever in religion?

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How would you define a soul?

Are you sure you want me to answer that?

Perhaps you had better tell me how you were defining it.

That might be better. Considering how strongly some feel toward anything that is not in line with their beliefs, or interests.

20 hours ago, swansont said:

To add to this - science can inform us in many ways, but can’t compel people to act. We see this currently in the US, where science is being ignored because it conflicts with personal and political agendas.

That's a good point.

It's something that people can use, but it cannot do anything for the people.

When you think of it, what has science done for anyone? Would you agree, nothing at all, or would you argue "Science has profoundly improved lives across the globe by addressing fundamental human needs and enhancing quality of life in numerous ways."

How would you respond?

45 minutes ago, KingKobra said:

Ah, good. Now we are actually talking.

I say less of us would die, if more people submitted to God's government, and lived by God's standards.

I can provide the proof of that.

For starters, the amount diseases in the world at present, would be nearly zero, if people submitted to Christ as their governor.

Actually, God's government has more far reaching power than and system man can structure.

Science has been around for centuries, and evidence shows that the problems of the world are increasing.

Can God's government change all of that? Yes.

"Vague"? "Have not specified what you mean by "what matters most""?

This is not vague, and it also specifies what I mean by "what matters most".

Perhaps you read it a bit too quickly, or were distracted by what the thoughts that began to form when you read the title. IDK

What I wrote is quite clear, I'm sure.

Ah OK thanks for clarifying. So the issues that matter most in your view include include:

"wars, terrorism, violent crime, anger issues, domestic and child abuse, sexual assaults, governmental corruption".

As none of the issues in your list are features of the natural world, there is no reason to expect science to provide much help in dealing with them. It's like complaining that a spanner doesn't help you clean your teeth.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That reminds me of a Louis CK joke, where he claims Christianity won, and when challenged he simply asks, what date is it ?

When we consider "far reaching" literally then sure that could be argued, but it's a waiting game and science is coming hard and eccelerating.

How far reaching is science? He asked on a computer from a different countery... 🙄

Some things get more media coverage than others.

For example, we heard about the cyclones that devastated Asian countries, but how many of us know about cloud seeding in 2025?

That fact eludes many.

In the same way, some facts regarding far reaching results in the area of 'religion' may well elude many, who believe they are 'well informed'.

This may well be the case?

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Ah OK thanks for clarifying. So the issues that matter most in your view include include:

"wars, terrorism, violent crime, anger issues, domestic and child abuse, sexual assaults, governmental corruption".

As none of the issues in your list are features of the natural world, there is no reason to expect science to provide much help in dealing with them. It's like complaining that a spanner doesn't help you clean your teeth.

Does that mean you exclude family science from anything related to science?

1 hour ago, KingKobra said:

I say less of us would die, if more people submitted to God's government, and lived by God's standards.

I can provide the proof of that.

Funny that,

I was just watching a programme last night describing how Cortez thought he was spreading the word of God, but was actually spreading smallpox.

This led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the collapse of a civilisation.

1 hour ago, KingKobra said:

Some things get more media coverage than others.

For example, we heard about the cyclones that devastated Asian countries, but how many of us know about cloud seeding in 2025?

That fact eludes many.

In the same way, some facts regarding far reaching results in the area of 'religion' may well elude many, who believe they are 'well informed'.

This may well be the case?

Does that mean you exclude family science from anything related to science?

Yes, I think probably I do. People sometimes try to slap the label “science” onto bodies of ideas to give them an aura of authority that is not warranted. By the look of it this may be one of these. There is no Wiki or Encylopaedia entry for “family science”, for example. Looks flaky to me.

Edited December 8Dec 8 by exchemist

53 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes, I think probably I do. People sometimes try to slap the label “science” onto bodies of ideas to give them an aura of authority that is not warranted. By the look of it this may be one of these. There is no Wiki or Encylopaedia entry for “family science”, for example. Looks flaky to me.

I'm so glad the world does not depend one individual ideas and opinions.

Otherwise, the world would be the most one-sided place to live, with things that can actually be helpful, being cast aside as useless.

Social science (not often rendered in the plural as the social sciences) is one of the branches of science, devoted to the study of societies and the relationships among members within those societies. The term was formerly used to refer to the field of sociology, the original "science of society", established in the 18th century. It now encompasses a wide array of additional academic disciplines, including anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, management, communication studies, psychology, culturology, and political science.

These fields use systematic methods - both qualitative and quantitative - to understand social phenomena, often employing the scientific method to analyze data and draw conclusions about human society. The origins of social science trace back to the Enlightenment and the 19th century, with key figures like Auguste Comte, Émile Durkheim, and Karl Marx helping to establish its foundational principles.

UNCF

Social Sciences: The Study of Human Experience - UNCF

Social sciences unlock insights into human behavior. Learn how you can pursue a career that shapes society’s future.

Family science is a social science.

Evidently, it's here to stay, and I think it is a good thing.

Would you care to retract,, and change your viewpoint?