Social Sciences:Good or Bad,Hard or Easy

  • Thread starter Thread starter stjimmy
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the perceived status of social sciences compared to fields like math, physics, and biology. It highlights that social sciences address complex issues related to human behavior, society, and power dynamics, requiring critical thinking and analytical skills. While some argue that social sciences lack the rigor of hard sciences, this view overlooks the use of statistical analysis and experimental methods in social research. The difficulty of social sciences varies by discipline; fields like economics and philosophy demand strong analytical skills, while psychology may focus more on qualitative insights. Ultimately, social sciences are essential for understanding human experiences and should not be dismissed as "easy" or less valuable. The assessment of their rigor is subjective and influenced by individual perspectives.
stjimmy
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Hey
Do you think that the social sciences deserve their status as less hard than say math or physics or even biology

They do tackle very hard subject matter like the nature of socioty in genreal from power(poli sci) to how people trade and make chocies(econ)
to the nature of the mind (pscychology)
and i don't think that they are easy either.the math and even concepts in econ and philosophy in particular is very hard.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Man poor social sciences not a soul will reply?!
Ohhhh...well
 


The question of whether the social sciences are good or bad, hard or easy is a complex one that cannot be answered definitively. It ultimately depends on one's perspective and personal experiences with the social sciences.

On one hand, the social sciences are incredibly important in understanding human behavior, society, and the world we live in. They tackle complex and often controversial topics, such as power dynamics, economic systems, and the nature of the mind. These subjects require critical thinking, analysis, and a deep understanding of human behavior. In this sense, the social sciences can be considered "good" because they shed light on important issues and help us better understand ourselves and the world around us.

On the other hand, some may argue that the social sciences are not as rigorous or "hard" as other fields like math or physics. This is a common misconception that stems from the belief that the social sciences are based solely on opinions and not facts. However, this is not the case. Social scientists use a variety of methods, including statistical analysis and experimental research, to gather data and support their theories. It takes a great deal of skill and knowledge to conduct high-quality research in the social sciences, and the concepts and theories can be just as complex as those in other fields.

In addition, the difficulty of the social sciences can vary depending on the specific discipline. For example, economics and philosophy can be highly analytical and require a strong understanding of mathematical concepts, while psychology may focus more on qualitative research and understanding human behavior. It is unfair to lump all social sciences together and label them as "easy" or "less hard" compared to other fields.

In conclusion, the social sciences are a vital and valuable area of study that should not be underestimated or dismissed as "easy." They may not be as quantifiable as other fields, but they offer a unique perspective and understanding of the human experience. Whether they are "good" or "bad" and "hard" or "easy" is subjective and ultimately depends on one's individual perspective and experiences.
 
Thread 'RIP George F. Smoot III (1945-2025)'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Smoot https://physics.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/george-smoot-iii https://apc.u-paris.fr/fr/memory-george-fitzgerald-smoot-iii https://elements.lbl.gov/news/honoring-the-legacy-of-george-smoot/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2006/smoot/facts/ https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200611/nobel.cfm https://inspirehep.net/authors/988263 Structure in the COBE Differential Microwave Radiometer First-Year Maps (Astrophysical Journal...
Back
Top