Soft sciences

W

Wizard of Whatever

Registered Senior Member
It seems to me that the soft sciences and society at large have fallen well behind chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc. Since the societal revolutions of the second half of the 20th century, the country has fallen into a static state of cold civil war.
 
The social and biomedical sciences are what the replication crisis initially revolved around during its opening awareness, but that's arguably expanded over the years. And those disciplines have always been an easy target for invalid science practices in general. Not to mention that via their very nature, the "human-related sciences" are the softer or more amenable portal for the interests, theories, ethical prescriptions, political orientations, and ideological influences of the humanities to encroach upon the science endeavor. (The Two Cultures)
_
 
Last edited:
Those poor soft sciences get somewhat disparaged on their methods and falsifiability issues, and that's sometimes fair. I think the big problem is GIGO stuff in the social sciences, where you can get data of dubious quality - e.g. people self-reporting in a ways that can be skewed or deceptive. I thought that SRI (Stanford Research Institute) hit a bad patch back in the 70s when even hard science experts were deceived by charlatans or well-meaning deluded people when studying the paranormal - they had entered into an area where they were leaving the rigorous standards of physics and entering a soft science realm where you have to deal with humans and their penchant for deception and self-deception.
 
exchemist said:
No: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

The distinction appears to be contested, but I think it remains useful.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think the distinction is important but they need to lose the implied valuations and judgements made in the descriptions. For instance, "soft sciences" being less "methodologically rigorous" is simply a reflection of reality and is not in any sense indicative of being less thorough or diligent. Pretending otherwise suggests either hubris or stupidity.

We're past the era when some were apt to perceive certain "soft sciences" as pseudosciences, but I think the attitude that they somehow are less "legitimate" and perhaps more susceptible to forms of hucksterism is still somewhat prevalent in some circles. But there's as much "bad" hard science out there as there is "bad" soft science, contaminated by money, politics, etc., and that shit shouldn't tarnish the abundance of solid, honest work out there. And we shouldn't forget that ofttimes said "bad" science is more a product of inept popularization of otherwise legitimate work.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
It seems to me that the soft sciences and society at large have fallen well behind chemistry, physics, biology, geology, etc. Since the societal revolutions of the second half of the 20th century, the country has fallen into a static state of cold civil war.
Click to expand...
Well, you can't measure/quantify or experiment with human behavior like you can with the ''hard sciences,'' so I'm not sure what you mean by ''fallen behind?'' :? I consider ''soft sciences'' to be around psychology, sociology, etc. and it doesn't really 'compete' with hard sciences at all.
 
wegs said:
Well, you can't measure/quantify or experiment with human behavior like you can with the ''hard sciences,'' so I'm not sure what you mean by ''fallen behind?'' :? I consider ''soft sciences'' to be around psychology, sociology, etc. and it doesn't really 'compete' with hard sciences at all.
Click to expand...
If these sciences were like the hard ones, society wouldn't be in the shape it's in. Hard science has developed new things for society, while society itself has seemed to regress.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
If these sciences were like the hard ones, society wouldn't be in the shape it's in. Hard science has developed new things for society, while society itself has seemed to regress.
Click to expand...
I think soft sciences have the same rigorous methods/processes as hard sciences for researching and understanding them, but human behaviors and such are often not predictable. That doesn’t negate however, the meaningful and relevant work done in soft sciences. Can you give an example of why you believe soft sciences are useless?
 
wegs said:
I think soft sciences have the same rigorous methods/processes as hard sciences for researching and understanding them, but human behaviors and such are often not predictable. That doesn’t negate however, the meaningful and relevant work done in soft sciences. Can you give an example of why you believe soft sciences are useless?
Click to expand...
I don't think they are useless but need modification and new ideas.
 
wegs said:
Well, as we (human behavior) evolve, the research evolves. Do you mean how we apply the findings or what is being studied? Or something else entirely?
Click to expand...
I think some of the basic ideas about human society, psychology, and other similar disciplines need modification and updating. These include ideas of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, kids, etc. and the way they are applied to society at large.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top