I don't understand this bickering about social v natural science. Both have a valid place in research and coming from different perspectives have different aims, methods and outcomes. A good debate about epistemological and ontological veiws is a valid exercise but this 'mine's better than yours' debate on some threads is a sad reflection on a group of people who should know better.

sorry posted twice by mistake

quite enlightening point you have there. perhaps you should tell us what we ought to know better & also make it clear where the yours is better than mine debate has been taking place...which particular thread?

"02/06/2005 reviewing articles" and "12/06/2005 social science"

I think "what we ought to know better" (sweetchic) is self explanatory

you're the one doing the bickering. thought you were better than that camper.

Sweetchic - I am not sure how I am the one doing the bickering or what your comments add to the thread. You really can come across as quite over sensitive and volatile at times. Perhaps you could add something more constructive!

keep it up camper!

Camper,

I know exactly what you mean.

I was reading the thread

http://www.findaphd.com/students/viewmessage.asp?thread=2398&cat=3&order=1&nthreads=20

And look at what people say:

From John:
"[social science] is a lot easier than proper science"

Proper science?? Like social *science* is not proper??

From Sweetchic:

" if you don't enjoy calculations, experiments and being imaginative"

Like there's no imagination in social science??

It's kinda funny to see the bizarre ideas people have about social sciences...

Most students seem think that their field is more challenging - probably because they haven't got any copmarison.
At the end of the day a PhD is never easy although the reasons for this will be of a different nature in social / science fields.

So we should all concentrate on helping people with questions and keep our opinions about how hard we think a field is to ourself.

Thank you Eduardo and anon german. I am glad I am not the only one that thinks like this. A PhD is a PhD - it doesn't matter what field it is in. I find the whole debate about one being better/more difficult than the other distateful and it is concerning that this is coming from the next generation of acadmics. Don't you think we should be showing colleagues some respect?

I agree with both of you - though it may seem contradictory. At one level, people should keep their opinions to themselves; at another, there seems to be a lack of respect for each other's fields that should be addressed somehow.

very interesting. the difference between the so called 'natural/proper' sciences and the social sciences is obvious & there is nothing wrong with appreciating that difference. Eduardo: there is a big difference between being imaginative & creative.

Sweetchic: ok, I will repeat it once more... If you call natural science "proper", when by contrast one assumes social science is "not proper", which is obviously an incorrect assumption. No one is denying that natural science is different from social science, but to call one "proper" is to make the other "not proper" - by contrast. About being creative / imaginative: it's funny, because my dictionary says, creative: imaginative; imatinative: creative. At root level they're different, as one is often used to refer to constructions of the mind (imagination) and the other to constructions of the physical world (creation).

thanks for that helpful extract of the root meanings-creative refers to social sciences whereas imaginative refers to sciences. i borrowed the word 'proper/natural' from your previous reply & the question above. if you noticed they are in quotes. thanks for saying exactly what i meant by the quotes. the same applies for the word 'natural' which you appear to be comfortable with. who said sciences were natural and social sciences unnatural? lol. what dictionary did you use?