Have you ever actually tried to use the results that come from the social sciences? I've had them inflicting their views on me for years and the fact of the matter is that the bar is substantially lower in the social sciences. I could never have gotten away with a result that was only had a correlation coefficient of .7 on a project, I'd get a failing grade. But, not only is that acceptable in the social sciences, that's considered to be a good result.

What's more, if physics or chemistry were that flaky, we'd have panes regularly crashing and no computers.

Psychology itself as a profession is on the way out. If you really want to know why people do things that solidly in the domain of behavioral neurologists. Medication and treatment-wise, you've got psychiatrists and social workers. I've been following that and the results are promising. Whereas you had psychologists guessing at what was going on in the brain, there's now the possibility with SPECT and fMRI technology to actually see sort of what's going on. For those cases where the behavior patterns aren't adequately telling you what's going on in the brain. The days of guessing about why people do things and to what end are coming to a close and most of those "incurable" cases aren't so much incurable as they are the result of medical incompetence.

Last I heard, anthropologists around here were ceasing to use the term science to refer to the discipline. In large part because there isn't an objective place to make assessments and study from. If they could establish that, then they'd have the chance to have a proper science develop around it.

It's one thing to not have good enough research data to work with and quite another to outright ignore the data we have. It's known that the willingness to seek something and the ability to enjoy something are on different neural pathways in the brain, but the DSM-V which just came out has those as the same diagnosis. Never mind that there's ample direct observation that says that it's not the case. Not to mention the number of psychologists that still operate under the assumption that there is something called normal in terms of neurophysiology. Because there really isn't something you can point to that's normal. People can and do vary, even in individuals who are not expressing abnormal behavior patterns.

Social scienes can have valuable contributions to make, but let's not delude the meaning of science any more than it already has been. It's bad enough that negative results are being seen as bad results and that we have string theorists who have been at it for decades without any testable hypotheses to show for it.

Nice post, but since you mention the meaning of science... it means knowledge... it is about trying to create an understanding of how things work and explain a phenomena, and for this there is no difference between social and natural sciences. They are just different in nature, due to what they are investigating.

Dude, the term "hard sciences" actually implies that there are also other sciences, the soft sciences - so using that term to prove that only hard sciences are science is perfectly stupid. And what are soft sciences? Among others social science. What does social science include? Oh, anthropology and history among others. I am aware that there may be social and lingual differences and it's more common for German and Polish anthropologists and historians to refer to themselves as scientists than in English-speaking countries but I am fairly certain that in academic circles many people from the social sciences are referred to as scientists. Actually I just checked and yeah, it seems to be or at least have been a subject of debates but it seems quite common to refer to people active in the field of social sciences as social scientists. Social scientists - suck it down.

Actually many historians, also in the English-speaking world, do feel entitled to the term (I just checked). And actually social scientists do employ so-called scientific methods (which are indeed more common in but not limited to natural sciences). I don't know what you think historians and anthropologists do but I'm starting to think that you don't know half of it. Just so you know, they do often employ empirical research (as much as natural scientists skip empirical research regularly and come up with theories which border on occultism). Did you know, by the way, that that classical model of the atom that everybody knows and loves was wrong is nothing more than a mascot anymore? But how is it possible? It's scientists who came up with it! Also if you knew the slightest thing about epistemology you'd be aware that the "hardness" of hard sciences is also perfectly questionable, for similar reasons that you use to question the social sciences' entitlement to their name.

What's that even supposed to mean? So what, physicists will create matter out of thin air whereas historians write fantasy novels? Oh, maybe you're referring to the fact that "scientists" can actually predict events while historians and anthropologists don't? Because what, using observation of past events to predict future events is something only used in natural sciences? Whether a ball will bounce is a prediction, how a regime or society will react to an event or certain circumstances is not?

Dude, no offense, I know people with a stance similar to yours, frankly my best friend and colleague shares a similar one, but at least they know what they are talking about and despite actually being representatives of natural sciences they show more respect towards social sciences than you do. And it's funny, I was considering that it's really about lingual differences and the language barrier but no, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Whatever happened to lambasting those no good dirty feminazis at rock paper shotgun? How dare they find Deponia 3 stupid awful dreck! I sure do dislike them! Next time I swear ill just not read their articles!

Maybe 'hard' sciences are trying to describe things that do not exist? (i.e. parapsychology, astrology etc. :))

But thats hardly anywhere as entertaining!

Why would you target a woman after reading in this thread that it wasn't allowed because equality dictates that only men should be targeted? You sexist pig! :O

It's not a GOG forum thread until it's been derailed. Hard.

Twice.

I'll let you in on a little secret: nobody here is ^^. Not now, at least ("questioning things" is not something I'd consider a bad thing). The thing is - "natural selection" and "evolution" are NOT the be-all, end-all answers to all the questions one can ask. "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" - you know this one, right? There's even a chance you know what it's a quote from Maslow. There is, however, as very slim chance that you know what book it's from - it's from one called "The Psychology of Science". Ponder that for a moment.
Let me close this with an anecdote. During one of my courses we had a delightful text, where the author pointed out that "gathering" had been a lot more of a food source than "hunting". "Hunting", apparently, was more of a sport, with a high payoff, much fun to be had, yet very slim chances of success. He then went on to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that women are extremely attracted to athletes. Necessarily, of course, due to how evolution had went. I stopped reading for a moment as I reached that point, finding no evidence of any kind to support his "common-sense observation" that was allegedly more of a showcase of him being right than a thing to prove. Soon enough a suspicion overcame me, and with the most smug contempt I flipped the pages back to the beginning to check the author's name and subsequently establish his nationality. Can you guess where the guy was from and why it was exactly what I had suspected :>?

Some depth is lost sure but I don't believe has to be as bad as Bethesda makes it out to be in their games.

I prefer for the player to be able to make "their own story" that's why I hope Cyberpunk 2077 will have character creation as opposed to being locked as a single character for every playthrough.

I basically hope it outdoes Bethesda

Note: What I feel really hurts writing is fully voiced dialog

You're very wrong. The scientific field of economics is concerned with the practice of finding justifications for why we absolutely cannot use college textbook stuff, then building a new model just for the occasion and massaging the data until it outputs recommendations to implement a policy you want to implement for unrelated reasons. The actual science, aka the stuff in textbooks, works.

Primordia is a 100% modern game. LucasArts was just ahead of time, and many of their ideas hold up well in 2013.

To better understand the difference, play Primordia and Kyrandia Book One back to back.

Which is to say, I wish there would be more games just as likeable as I found 90s games in the 90s, when things were different and I had more free time and lower standards. But holy hell I don't want to see actual design practices that are characteristic of the 90s by dint of being abandoned by 00s. Because they were abandoned for a reason.

True. Core rules in economics works, because if they didn't, we would have a freaking anarchy.

But even at it's core it hardy is an useful science for everyday businessman. Like the simplest rule of supply and demand. You can't estimate to any degree what the demand will be, because there are "too many factors" you should take in consideration.

The law works, but you can only get just as much of accurate results with making a research for your company..

But yeah, I should've said that. Economics works, but everytime I see an "expert" on television preaching from his high horse and a week later everything he said was wrong, it's a shame.

Even at the state level - taxes revenue is always lower than they asume, net indexes are always very different from expectations, it's absurd. You could argue, though, becuase our politicians are surprised every year that raising taxes rates generates less revenue than the last year that they just know shit about economy.

Different people, different tastes. I like my games to be more like movies in terms of storytelling. I couldn't get into any Bethesda game because despite the outstanding lore and the game world, I felt no connection to my character at all.

I felt attached to Shepard much more than any player generated character in any game ever.

I am that kind of player who chooses "generate random face" if any character creation is avaible and if the result doesn't look like shit, I take it ;P

that's fine & I can understand your reasons, there many tastes available & I'm sure not everyone agrees "mushroom & swiss burgers" are the best hamburgers.

Note I'm the type that scrutinizes over the face & *stats of my characters

*(not necessarily to maximize)