Prev: JSH: Maybe they're fakes?
Next: JSH: There can be only one
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


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: JSH: Maybe they're fakes?
Next: JSH: There can be only one