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: Chazwin on 14 Jul 2010 04:32 On Jul 14, 2:28 am, Shrikeback <shrikeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 5:38 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. > Soft sciences are those fields of study that have > some of the accoutrements of sciences but really > aren't sciences, so we put them in the School of > Humanities. You know, such as psychology and > sociology. .... and climatology
From: Eric Gisin on 15 Jul 2010 00:24 Wow, Brat, you must be a philosofur. Show us your PhD! "Bret Cahill" <Bret_E_Cahill(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:87c72350-f7d8-4c73-83ba-bfc13086d055(a)x24g2000pro.googlegroups.com... >> 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. >
From: Bret Cahill on 15 Jul 2010 01:17 > Wow, Git a Pell grant and sum book larnin and mebbe you won't look so doggy poppy stoopid. > >> 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.
From: erschroedinger on 15 Jul 2010 11:43 On Jul 15, 1:17 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > Wow, > > Git a Pell grant and sum book larnin and mebbe you won't look so doggy > poppy stoopid. > Naw, he'd consider Pell grants socialist, as they come from money the gov't stole from the rich, and they're given out equally to people.
From: Autymn D. C. on 20 Jul 2010 11:30
On Jul 13, 6:32 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Fortunately many scientists pay only lip service to the formal > approach, and focus on knowledge, which is the real meaning of > "science" (from the Latin root for knowing - in other languages the > usage is the same, as with the German "Wissenschaft"). I once attended Another illiterate scientist--knowing is gnoscendus. Scientia means cunninghead (collective plural feminine), and scire means cunnan. Wittan/wissen is sapere. Dumb Thewds; scio calcitrare vestrum culum. > a lecture by a very severe Professor who had his students analyse 400 severe := stark I didn't know Professor was someone's name. -Aut > papers in the scientific literature, finding that only two of them > followed "correct" scientific procedure. This is good news, since it > means that 99.5% of scientists (398/400) disagree with him. > http://bill.silvert.org/notions/ecology/hardsoft.htm |