Really Poor Wiki Article On Hard & Soft Science
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Test bank to Managing Human Resources 5e Gomez-Mejia, Balkin TB
Next: Jacobson's Back (was: Can thermodynamical model be fundamental...)
From: Shrikeback on 13 Jul 2010 22:46 On Jul 13, 7:44 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Softer sciences like biology and medicine are more empirical. If they > > > are doing meta studies it's not a hard science. > > > Idiot. Biology and medicine _are_ hard sciences. > > What about dowsing? That's right next to climatology these days. Sorry. > You have any more Lyndon LaRouche links to dowsers? Why do you want them? Can't you get them for yourself for a change? Typical leech.
From: Bret Cahill on 13 Jul 2010 22:48 > > > > Has anyone even bothered to precisely define or list the differences > > > > between "hard" and "soft" sciences? > > > Its one of those distinctions so common and old that we forget that > > > new people have to learn it also. > > > Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms often used when > > > comparing fields of academic research or scholarship, with hard > > > meaning perceived as being more scientific, > > What is _that_ supposed to mean? > > A more scientific science? .. . . > http://bill.silvert.org/notions/ecology/hardsoft.htm Maybe they should put _that_ article in wiki. > > That reasoning goes in a circular circle. > > > What they mean is "lots of [explicit] math" or "more [explicit] > > calculations." > > > > rigorous, > > > Physicists must go to parochial school with old school nuns making > > sure they get back from recess on time! > > > > or accurate. > > > As stated below, lots of sig figs . . . > > > That's _all_ they mean or can mean by "hard" science. > > > > Fields of the natural or physical sciences are often described as > > > hard, while the social sciences and similar fields are often described > > > as soft. The hard sciences are characterized as relying on > > > experimental, empirical, quantifiable data, > > > Hard sciences would certainly be more theoretical than soft sciences, > > in other words, _less_ empirical. > > > Einstein didn't conduct any empirical studies whatsoever before > > writing the most important "hard" science paper of the 20th Century. > > > Softer sciences like biology and medicine are more empirical. If they > > are doing meta studies it's not a hard science. > > > > relying on the scientific > > > method, and focusing on accuracy and objectivity. Publications in the > > > hard sciences such as natural sciences make heavier use of graphs than > > > soft sciences such as sociology, according to the graphism thesis. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science > > > A nearly worthless article. > > > > > I mentioned sig figs in "hard" vs epidemiological studies in "soft." > > > > > Before Galileo there was no distinction. > > > > > Some believe Galileo made science into a science.
From: Shrikeback on 13 Jul 2010 22:53 On Jul 13, 7:46 pm, Shrikeback <shrikeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 7:44 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Softer sciences like biology and medicine are more empirical. If they > > > > are doing meta studies it's not a hard science. > > > > Idiot. Biology and medicine _are_ hard sciences. > > > What about dowsing? > > That's right next to climatology these days. Sorry. > > > You have any more Lyndon LaRouche links to dowsers? > > Why do you want them? Can't you get them > for yourself for a change? Typical leech. Oh yeah, but here's an interesting bit of news: after Sarkozy called Obama a rank amateur (essentially), they renamed the French Fries at the Whitehouse to "Equality Fries."
From: Bret Cahill on 13 Jul 2010 23:01 > > > Biology and medicine _are_ hard sciences. > > What about dowsing? > That's right next to climatology these days. You've studied dowsing as much as climatology? > Sorry. Maybe you would sound more eruditated if you demanded some climate model source code. How many high school drop outs did ya impress with that one? > > You have any more Lyndon LaRouche links to dowsers? > > Why do you want them? Who set you up with that Lyndon LaRouche link to a dowser? Was it a rightard or some liberal having fun with you because you are so gullible? Bret Cahill
From: Chazwin on 14 Jul 2010 04:32
It's easier to understand by example. The Theory of Evolution = Hard Evolutionary Psychology = Soft Clinical Psychology = Hard Psychotherapy = Soft Meteorology = Hard Climate Change = Soft Epidemiology = Hard Homeopathy = Soft Astronomy = Hard Astrology = Soft |