Which disciplines would you call Hard Sciences vs. Soft Sciences ?

[aquitaine]

Here's my cynicism loaded answer:

Hard sciences are sciences that help us learn more about the world, understand the universe, and often end up being widely used to push our technological development, thereby further advancing the human race.

Soft sciences are generally so weighed down with BS it's hard to see how particularly useful a lot of them are. They have their place, but too often in our society they take center stage, which frankly is a place they don't really deserve.

EDIT: I'll even give an example. During the last several years before the financial crisis it became increasingly evident to anyone who was paying any attention that we were in a big debt bubble and that sooner or later something bad would happen. However so many economists insisted nothing was wrong, or that we were "too big to fail", or some other such nonsense. When the bubble burst a lot of these people would always say "the worst is over" after a major event (such as the Bear Stearns takeover), only to find out things would get worse and worse and worse and each time they would say "the worst is over". Now they are saying we are in a recovery and everything will be ok, but since nothing was done to address the roots of the crisis (too much loose money and debt) I doubt we've seen the end of this recession.

 

[Galteeth]

Here's my cynicism loaded answer:

Hard sciences are sciences that help us learn more about the world, understand the universe, and often end up being widely used to push our technological development, thereby further advancing the human race.

Soft sciences are generally so weighed down with BS it's hard to see how particularly useful a lot of them are. They have their place, but too often in our society they take center stage, which frankly is a place they don't really deserve.

EDIT: I'll even give an example. During the last several years before the financial crisis it became increasingly evident to anyone who was paying any attention that we were in a big debt bubble and that sooner or later something bad would happen. However so many economists insisted nothing was wrong, or that we were "too big to fail", or some other such nonsense. When the bubble burst a lot of these people would always say "the worst is over" after a major event (such as the Bear Stearns takeover), only to find out things would get worse and worse and worse and each time they would say "the worst is over". Now they are saying we are in a recovery and everything will be ok, but since nothing was done to address the roots of the crisis (too much loose money and debt) I doubt we've seen the end of this recession.

That's an interesting example. The Austrian economists were not surprised, but part of the idea of austrian economics (formulated by Mises) is that you can't use the same types of evmpirical based methods in economics as in other sciences, because what you will wind up doing is succumbing to selection bias in disregarding complex variables and treating dis-similar events as the same phenomenon since you can't study economic phenomenon in isolation. I don't want to get off on a tangent about economics, but the idea is an important one; by applying methodology that is not really appropriate, you can give the illusion of "scientific" credibility or an imagined degree of certainty to what are essentially just your own opinions. If you are in an "expert" position this can be quite harmful, as a consensus can be reached based on groupthink that has not been subjected to the rigorous doubt standard used in the "harder" sciences. I would say this is a problem not just in economics, but in psychology, sociology, political science, really all the "soft" sciences.

 

[aquitaine]

That's an interesting example. The Austrian economists were not surprised,

Yes, but they weren't in the mainstream IIRC, fact is they still aren't. Most economists either subscribe to the Chicago school or the Keynesian view.

Of the soft sciences probably the only one that really deserves a lot of attention is psychology. The rest has an influence that is massively disproportionate to their actual worth.

 

[Klockan3]

I don't understand how you people can claim Physics to be "rigorous". It is one of the most delusional, careless and clueless of all sciences. Physics is responsible for giving us string theory, superstring theory, 26 dimensions? 10 dimensions? 11 dimensions? 3 or 5 dimensional branes? M-theory, multiverses, tachyons, gravitons, and a universal constant of gravity to 4 digits. All without any proof! No rigor, no shame, and they keep taking in the grant money. This is just to start off the list.

Physics, in my humble opinion, is a joke. Its like a hobby for all mathematics literate academia dwellers who had too much time on their hands.

By that notion maths isn't rigorous. What you are talking about is a really small subset of physics and it isn't used nor accepted by most physicists as true. As far as I know none is saying that this is the truth, they say that it might be close to the truth. The reason it is being funded is because if they find something that works it might be worth more than the whole worlds GDP, it have already happened several times before.

All the accepted physics we got is "hard science", much more rigorous than most of chemistry.

 

[qspeechc]

Economics is NOT a science. That's why Nobel prizes in economics can be given to blatantly contradicting "theories" just a few years apart.

 

[humanino]

All without any proof! No rigor, no shame, and they keep taking in the grant money. This is just to start off the list.

I hope your claim is not that string theory is inconsistent. You may not be aware, but Edward Witten is a Field medalist. If there is one thing that must be acknowledged, string theory has produced quite a bit of important mathematics.

Now maybe your concern is about motivations for string theory, and you confused "proof" with "experimental test". This is a completely different problem.

In any case, given your level of expertise, you will kindly refrain from making statements such as

It is one of the most delusional, careless and clueless of all sciences.

in the presence of an assembly of physicist.

 

[cronxeh]

In any case, given your level of expertise, you will kindly refrain from making statements such as
in the presence of an assembly of physicist.

Being an expert in string theory, or any aforementioned theoretical nonsense, does not make one an expert at reality. It is a delusion much like Kaku's sense of self importance.

"produced quite a bit of important mathematics" - Would you listen to yourself? Producing quantifiable results, testing hypothesis, and moving on to a new hypothesis is the basis of scientific method. You can't make a hypothesis on top of another ill conceived hypothesis and call that a theory - its called error propagation.

 

[humanino]

Producing quantifiable results, testing hypothesis, and moving on to a new hypothesis is the basis of scientific method.

You are welcome to make a contribution yourself if you claim to be able to do better. It so happens that the standard model of particle physics reproduces experimental observations to a fantastic accuracy. As of today, we do not have anything much convincing beyond the standard model. String theory is not the only theory beyond the standard model, but it is certainly a major contribution.

You can't make a hypothesis on top of another ill conceived hypothesis and call that a theory - its called error propagation.

This is an instance of misconception that you are displaying here. String theory is not making hypothesis on top of other hypothesis. It is removing an hypothesis. I have to simplify of course, but roughly speaking it goes like this.

Say you have the standard model of particle physics, based on quantum gauge field theories. Say you believe this scheme, as successful as it is, fails to include gravity at a fundamental level. So there must be something wrong with one of the hypothesis in the building of the standard model. You can make a list of the hypothesis necessary for the building of those quantum field theories. You will end up with something like

causality
continuity
locality
unitarity
point particles

So the correct scientific behavior at this point is to look for a possible removal of hypothesis in this list. Some tried to remove locality. Some tried to remove continuity. It so happens that string theory removed the hypothesis of point particles. They obtained fantastic predictions about Nature, such as additional bosonic dimensions (10+1 total compared to our known 4), and such as fermionic dimensions (supersymmetry as represented geometrically in superspace). Eventually, they come close to realize Einstein's dream of realizing all interactions from a single gravitational interaction on an elaborate geometry.

You will note for instance that Connes' noncommutative geometry realizes the very same thing, although with quite a different approach. Most intriguingly, non-commutative geometry also predicts 6 additional inner K-dimensions (not simply topological dimensions as in string theory) + 1 for the Higgs mechanism.

So again, you obtain all that not by adding more hypothesis, but by removing hypothesis. Supersymmetry is the only to extend Poincare symmetry as far as published in the literature. Again, if you will come up with something better, please do so, we will be very happy. If you do not come up with anything else but unfounded wrong comments, you will understand that you do not have much credibility. String theoreticians are much better aware than you of the shortcomings of their accomplishments, in particular the lack of decisive experimental test. It does not mean there is no effort to find one, it does not even mean there no experimental prediction.

Instead of complaining that we do not yet have a unified theory, you should be excited to live in the period where we are so close to find it.

 

[lisab]

I don't understand how you people can claim Physics to be "rigorous". It is one of the most delusional, careless and clueless of all sciences. Physics is responsible for giving us string theory, superstring theory, 26 dimensions? 10 dimensions? 11 dimensions? 3 or 5 dimensional branes? M-theory, multiverses, tachyons, gravitons, and a universal constant of gravity to 4 digits. All without any proof! No rigor, no shame, and they keep taking in the grant money. This is just to start off the list.

Physics, in my humble opinion, is a joke. Its like a hobby for all mathematics literate academia dwellers who had too much time on their hands.

So the machine in front of you right now is built of components that were designed following principles based on delusions, carlessness, and cluelessness?

 

[OmCheeto]

Economics is NOT a science.

Yes it is. Just ask wiki

Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

It's right up there with the science of cat herding.

 

[rewebster]

Yes it is. Just ask wiki



It's right up there with the science of cat herding.

does wiki consider 'blogging' a science yet?

it should for as refined as its become !

 

[Evo]

Yes it is. Just ask wiki

It's right up there with the science of cat herding.

Cat herding would be #1 on my list.

 

[Klockan3]

Cat herding would be #1 on my list.

Is it even possible to herd cats?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Is it even possible to herd cats?

Here you go :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

 

[Galteeth]

Is it even possible to herd cats?

Sure, if you have some fish. Or maybe a bunch of laser pointers.

 

[Evo]

Here you go :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

I love that commercial.

 

[jtbell]

That one is a classic! I wonder how they managed to, uh, herd those cats in order to film it? Or are those CGI cats?

 

[Zubin]

Economics is NOT a science. That's why Nobel prizes in economics can be given to blatantly contradicting "theories" just a few years apart.

I'm sure you can find the error in your logic on your own.
According to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_science
Economics falls under social science. Sure you may not care for economics but your interest in it has no bearing on whether or not it is a valid field of study.

 

[lisab]

I'm sure you can find the error in your logic on your own.
According to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_science
Economics falls under social science. Sure you may not care for economics but your interest in it has no bearing on whether or not it is a valid field of study.

I agree that economics is a valid field of study, but it's not a science in that it does a poor job predicting the future. It's pretty good at describing the past, though.

I think I saw this here somewhere on PF...Feynman on the social sciences (not sure if he's referring to economics specifically):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EZcpTTjjXY

 

[Char. Limit]

Women's Studies is the softest science... er, pseudoscience in America today.

I'm on an iPod, is that on the list?

 

[DrClapeyron]

Geology has to be one of the hardest sciences along with chemistry. I don't see too many scientist other than geologist hiking up and down mountains at 6,000 ft elevation, diving into the water to swim near coral reefs or spending their summers in deserts. And chemistry has to be hard because chemists are always blowing themselves up.

 

[OmCheeto]

I agree that economics is a valid field of study, but it's not a science in that it does a poor job predicting the future. It's pretty good at describing the past, though.

I think I saw this here somewhere on PF...Feynman on the social sciences (not sure if he's referring to economics specifically):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EZcpTTjjXY

O.M.G. I think I may have subconsciously plagiarized professor Feynman on my website...

I decided to bring my ideas home, as the science forums I usually post at tend to dilute any hard science with opinions, disinformation, and general hysteria. I'm sure you've heard people saying they wouldn't drive one of those "death traps", or it's "bad economics" to be energy efficient.
Hard science, being of course, a generous dose of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. I am not interested in social sciences, such as economics, and politics, et al. None of those sciences, to my knowledge, ever created anything useful.

The things I write when sober...

 

[Zubin]

I agree that economics is a valid field of study, but it's not a science in that it does a poor job predicting the future. It's pretty good at describing the past, though.

I think I saw this here somewhere on PF...Feynman on the social sciences (not sure if he's referring to economics specifically):

You're invoking fallacious logic(ad verecundiam) if you're trying to suggest that the video you posted contains useful information. Feynman, much like many other famous physicists, was not an expert in the field(s) he was referring to in that particular video.

 

[Lazy]

In order from hardest to softest.

1.) Physics
2.) Chemistry
3.) Biology
4.) Medicine
5.) Economics
6.) Sociology
7.) Psychology

 

[qspeechc]

Crap, I just wrote a long response on why economics is not a science, and then my browser froze and I lost the reply I was going to post. I don't feel like typing it out again.
Anyway, just do a google search for "economics is not a science" and read away. I found http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/10/23/971012.htm" , which gives some of the arguments I was going to give.

Some other random articles:
http://asociologist.wordpress.com/2...-science-from-nobel-prizes-to-public-opinion/
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6556
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB123456978348686215.html

Etc., we all know how to use google.

 

[27Thousand]

Crap, I just wrote a long response on why economics is not a science, and then my browser froze and I lost the reply I was going to post. I don't feel like typing it out again.
Anyway, just do a google search for "economics is not a science" and read away. I found http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/10/23/971012.htm" , which gives some of the arguments I was going to give.

Some other random articles:
http://asociologist.wordpress.com/2...-science-from-nobel-prizes-to-public-opinion/
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6556
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB123456978348686215.html

Etc., we all know how to use google.

Not that there aren't any valid points from those websites, but I wonder how reliable .com websites are? Something to consider as food for thought, when someone says something is wrong in part of the medical field or any other areas we typically want scholarly peer-review sources for backup rather than .com sites.

 

[27Thousand]

I hesitated for that one. I thought psychology is influenced by the sociological context, whereas the psychology of a single individual (generally) has little impact on sociology.

Psychology often is influenced more by biology, depending on the area. There's a saying in psychology that everything psychological is also biological. There are quite a few cognitive neuroscience studies. Only some of psychology deals with social aspects, while the rest mostly deals with cognition or neuropsychology or behavior.

Psychology also emphasizes experimental-control studies, while economics and sociology don't place as much emphasis in that area.

 

[vici10]

Economics in present form (neoclassical) is not a science it is a religion. Its basic assumptions are flawed. For books about it see a book of Greek economist "Foundations of economics: a beginner's companion" By Yanis Varoufakis

http://books.google.ca/books?id=EcL...resnum=2&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

And another by Australian economist "Debunking economics: the naked emperor of the social sciences" By Steve Keen

http://books.google.ca/books?id=KdI...resnum=4&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[rewebster]

I've understood that the meaning of "Hard Sciences" and "Soft Sciences" is similar to 'hard facts' and 'soft facts'. In other words, if a science is a 'hard science', its fairly immutable-- 4 + 3 = 7 is a 'hard fact'; adding so much of this to that will cause this thing to happen.

Whereas a 'soft science' is one where there are more differences of opinions on the options or reasons that or why something happens.

 

[rewebster]

You are welcome to make a contribution yourself if you claim to be able to do better. It so happens that the standard model of particle physics reproduces experimental observations to a fantastic accuracy. As of today, we do not have anything much convincing beyond the standard model. String theory is not the only theory beyond the standard model, but it is certainly a major contribution.
This is an instance of misconception that you are displaying here. String theory is not making hypothesis on top of other hypothesis. It is removing an hypothesis. I have to simplify of course, but roughly speaking it goes like this.

Say you have the standard model of particle physics, based on quantum gauge field theories. Say you believe this scheme, as successful as it is, fails to include gravity at a fundamental level. So there must be something wrong with one of the hypothesis in the building of the standard model. You can make a list of the hypothesis necessary for the building of those quantum field theories. You will end up with something like

causality
continuity
locality
unitarity
point particles

So the correct scientific behavior at this point is to look for a possible removal of hypothesis in this list. Some tried to remove locality. Some tried to remove continuity. It so happens that string theory removed the hypothesis of point particles. They obtained fantastic predictions about Nature, such as additional bosonic dimensions (10+1 total compared to our known 4), and such as fermionic dimensions (supersymmetry as represented geometrically in superspace). Eventually, they come close to realize Einstein's dream of realizing all interactions from a single gravitational interaction on an elaborate geometry.

You will note for instance that Connes' noncommutative geometry realizes the very same thing, although with quite a different approach. Most intriguingly, non-commutative geometry also predicts 6 additional inner K-dimensions (not simply topological dimensions as in string theory) + 1 for the Higgs mechanism.

So again, you obtain all that not by adding more hypothesis, but by removing hypothesis. Supersymmetry is the only to extend Poincare symmetry as far as published in the literature. Again, if you will come up with something better, please do so, we will be very happy. If you do not come up with anything else but unfounded wrong comments, you will understand that you do not have much credibility. String theoreticians are much better aware than you of the shortcomings of their accomplishments, in particular the lack of decisive experimental test. It does not mean there is no effort to find one, it does not even mean there no experimental prediction.

Instead of complaining that we do not yet have a unified theory, you should be excited to live in the period where we are so close to find it.

I keep hearing that---'we are close', 'in the next ten to twenty years'---and wonder where that thinking come from?

is it because of the LHC? the interplay and/or exchange of info because of the internet? Where does the idea that we're going to get 'the answer' in the next few years come from?