I think the hard and soft sciences can be distinguished by what the science is studying. Hard sciences studies physical realities, physical realties that would exist even if man had never existed. Soft sciences are about man, specifically, what and how we think.
Hard sciences endeavor to factor out man's biases and see reality as if omnipotent. Soft sciences endeavor to do the opposite, to make EVEYTHING about man and his world.
Reality works by the same unchangeable rules, consistent since the Big Bang. All we have to do is dig deeper in order to comprehend more. Soft sciences invent their own reality, changeable to whatever extent people care to change it. It does not progress, it morphs. Lately, the soft sciences have been getting us nowhere.
That is an interesting take, but I was interested in why we call them “soft” from an historical perspective. A different and maybe even more important question is if they actually are soft.
You might imagine that I don’t consider them “soft” or softer than physics, just different. Comparing them is quite… odious.
I think it is mistaken to call the social sciences soft, I think they are also “hard” or as “hard” as a natural science is. But J do agree that they are only marginally related, I consider methodological dualism (that there are broadly two different methods, one appropriate for the study of Nature, one appropriate for the study of Man)
Don’t worry, I don’t believe you are dismissing the soft sciences, I just think that we are not taking economics or sociology “for what they are” when we consider them as soft.
I think the hard and soft sciences can be distinguished by what the science is studying. Hard sciences studies physical realities, physical realties that would exist even if man had never existed. Soft sciences are about man, specifically, what and how we think.
Hard sciences endeavor to factor out man's biases and see reality as if omnipotent. Soft sciences endeavor to do the opposite, to make EVEYTHING about man and his world.
Reality works by the same unchangeable rules, consistent since the Big Bang. All we have to do is dig deeper in order to comprehend more. Soft sciences invent their own reality, changeable to whatever extent people care to change it. It does not progress, it morphs. Lately, the soft sciences have been getting us nowhere.
That is an interesting take, but I was interested in why we call them “soft” from an historical perspective. A different and maybe even more important question is if they actually are soft.
You might imagine that I don’t consider them “soft” or softer than physics, just different. Comparing them is quite… odious.
I don't know if I'd say odious, but I do think that hard and soft science are only marginally related.
I think it is mistaken to call the social sciences soft, I think they are also “hard” or as “hard” as a natural science is. But J do agree that they are only marginally related, I consider methodological dualism (that there are broadly two different methods, one appropriate for the study of Nature, one appropriate for the study of Man)
I never meant to to suggest that both aren't significant and useful. But they must each be taken for what they are, and are not.
Don’t worry, I don’t believe you are dismissing the soft sciences, I just think that we are not taking economics or sociology “for what they are” when we consider them as soft.