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

[27Thousand]

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

As you all know, from time to time people will say there are the soft and hard sciences. Although it's not always clear where the distinctions are, it's generally believed they are there.

For the poll, please rate these Sciences in order of what you believe to be most hard (accurate and scientific) to most soft. Also, don't rate what you think the media says about them, but rather what you know about the actual field. The sciences are biology, economics, physics, sociology, chemistry, psychology, and medicine.

 

[humanino]

Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Medicine
Economics
Sociology
Psychology
PFology

 

[Cyrus]

Oh, that's what she said x million to this thread.

But on a more serious note, the only thing this list will show is the relative interest someone has in these topics. Difficulty is a relative concept, so the premise of the thread is flawed.

 

[humanino]

Cyrusology is a very hard science. The laws are so rigorous, only Pengwuino could master them, and then he disappeared. Even if you have information about Pengwuino's whereabout, please do not try Cyrusology at home.

 

[Cyrus]

Cyrusology is very hard

That's what she said.

 

[humanino]

Difficulty is a relative concept, so the premise of the thread is flawed.

I think that Mathematics are more "hard" than physics, and also easier. Because they are well-defined, I understand Mathematics truly : I know what they are about. Every single step is under control in Mathematics. Physics often takes some hand-waving, and nobody knows truly what we are talking about in Physics : we have to rely on Mathematics to communicate Physics. Chemistry is much more difficult than Physics, because the laws are so complicated that they can not be derived from first principles until a very high level. Psychology is so difficult, nobody even hopes to derive true first principle that would encompass all possible approaches to Psychology.

 

[Cyrus]

I think that mathematics are more "hard" than physics, and also easier. Because they are well-defined, I understand mathematics truly : I know what they are about. Chemistry is much more difficult than physics, because the laws are so complicated that they can not be derived from first principles until a very high level. Psychology is so hard, nobody even hopes to derive true first principle that would encompass all possible approaches to psychology.

Well that's my point, its all based on opinion. Hard for you is easy for Freud. Hard for Feud is easy for Bernoulli. That doesn't mean one thing is harder than another, just that its harder for a particular person due to their unique abilities.

 

[humanino]

I'll quote

If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is.

 

[Cyrus]

that's, what she said

1234

 

[cristo]

But on a more serious note, the only thing this list will show is the relative interest someone has in these topics. Difficulty is a relative concept, so the premise of the thread is flawed.

The term "hard science" doesn't mean the science that is most difficult, it means the science that is most rigorous.

 

[Cyrus]

The term "hard science" doesn't mean the science that is most difficult, it means the science that is most rigorous.

And how do you define rigor?

 

[CRGreathouse]

1. Chemistry
1. Physics
3. Biology
?. Medicine
5. Economics
6. Psychology
7. Sociology

 

[rewebster]

1. Chemistry
1. Physics
3. Biology
?. Medicine
5. Economics
6. Psychology
7. Sociology

just about the way I would put it, except I'll trade the #6 and #7


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

if engineering was an option, I'd put it in the #2 spot, and move everything down one


edit:

1. Math
2. Chemistry
3. Engineering
4. Physics
5. Biology
6. Medicine
7. Economics
8. Sociology
9. Psychology/Psychiatry



I thought the 'field' of Psychology---not for each person

 

[lisab]

Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Medicine
Economics
Sociology
Psychology
PFology

Not bad...I'd put Psychology above Sociology, I think. I might even move medicine down a notch.

And PFology is more sweet than soft.

 

[humanino]

Not bad...I'd put Psychology above Sociology, I think.

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.

 

[Pengwuino]

Pillow working is a pretty soft science

 

[27Thousand]

For some background on why I'm interested, I found many have come up with ideas on what separates hard from soft sciences, but few stand up to the actual empirical data when testing what distinguishes. Then I came across some peer-review studies which tested these ideas. The researchers gave a questionnaire to doctoral candidates from various fields of science asking them to rate these disciplines level of hardness on a scale of 1-10. Then the researchers used random selection to select peer-review journals from the fields and then random selection again to pull articles from them. They tested for correlations between rated hardness and various features that are measurable within the peer-review articles, to test peoples' ideas about what distinguishes the hard sciences from the soft sciences. Most ideas had no correlation at all, while a few had correlation (how much a discipline relies of empirical evidence wasn't a distinguishing feature), and one idea had a 0.97 correlation in distinguishing rated hardness of the Sciences. Others replicated the same type of study but put together their own study, and also found a correlation in the 0.90's (that's a strong correlation!) Although correlation doesn't prove causation, I found this really interesting, and downloaded these peer-review articles to my computer.

The distinguishing feature showed that the natural science peer-review journals had a lot more of this than both the formal sciences (mathematics and statistics) and social sciences. Although formal sciences are very rigorous/hard, this distinguishing feature separated the natural sciences from them. Then within both the natural and social sciences it separated the individual disciplines on level of hardness. Although what the survey on how so many doctoral candidates rated them could be subjective in hardness level, it was interesting looking at the correlations.

 

[russ_watters]

And how do you define rigor?

Strict adherence to the rules. In this case, to the scientific method. Social sciences are considered "soft" because they (by necessity) must rely on relaxed rules for experimentation and data analysis.

 

[27Thousand]

Strict adherence to the rules. In this case, to the scientific method. Social sciences are considered "soft" because they (by necessity) must rely on relaxed rules for experimentation and data analysis.

You would think! But then when one looks at the actual empirical evidence that can be put on a graph and replicated.

 

[russ_watters]

That's not a complete sentence...

 

[mynameinc]

As you all know, from time to time people will say there are the soft and hard sciences. Although it's not always clear where the distinctions are, it's generally believed they are there.

For the poll, please rate these Sciences in order of what you believe to be most hard (accurate and scientific) to most soft. Also, don't rate what you think the media says about them, but rather what you know about the actual field. The sciences are biology, economics, physics, sociology, chemistry, psychology, and medicine.

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

 

[ideasrule]

Physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, sociology, economics, psychology

 

[jobyts]

Where is Criminology and Evolution biology?

 

[Galteeth]

An example of "soft": In a college psychology class, there was a textbook that kept referring to "well-adjusted individuals" as a contrast to the pathological. When I pressed my professor on what these individuals were well adjusted to, he said "society." Which brings up the question, which society? If pathological individuals banded together and formed a society, would the formerly well-adjusted individuals be considered pathological? This seemed to imply that using these definitions, "pathology" was entirely subjective. Contrast this with physics. While phenomenon can be described in terms of contextual background, it would make no sense to use such vague subjective notions to describe motion. Physical laws are universal (in the broad sense.)

 

[humanino]

This seemed to imply that using these definitions, "pathology" was entirely subjective.

I believe this is the case indeed. Some behaviors we consider normal practice today will be considered pathological in the future, and vice-versa. It works as well with examples from past. Think about it.

Think about Bonobos normal social behavior. Would you want to be a Bonobo ?

 

[27Thousand]

An example of "soft": In a college psychology class, there was a textbook that kept referring to "well-adjusted individuals" as a contrast to the pathological. When I pressed my professor on what these individuals were well adjusted to, he said "society." Which brings up the question, which society? If pathological individuals banded together and formed a society, would the formerly well-adjusted individuals be considered pathological? This seemed to imply that using these definitions, "pathology" was entirely subjective. Contrast this with physics. While phenomenon can be described in terms of contextual background, it would make no sense to use such vague subjective notions to describe motion. Physical laws are universal (in the broad sense.)

Interesting point. I'm not all that interested in abnormal psychology, although I'm interested in a lot of other areas in the social sciences.

Something you may want to consider, if someone is diagnosed as having "OCD", each day takes two hour showers, spends one hour checking the same lock, can't use the restroom normally, and hates every second of all it and has extreme anxiety, it's extremely arbitrary to say that's a disorder. However, if you can set out general definitions for "disorder" and specific ones like OCD, then they can use the scientific method to study patterns relating to specific ones and experimental-control cause-effect treatments (including psychiatry and behavioral therapy methods, etc). Each and every single one of us has issues, however in abnormal psychology they set the definition for disorder as requiring: 1. Abnormal, 2. Impairs the individual or others around them at a level considered "Clinical", and 3. Chronic. Contrary to people who use "I'm OCD" as a figure of speech, having obsession/compulsions doesn't mean you have OCD, but rather it has a requirement of interfering regularly with more than an hour of your time each day, and you're required to dislike the obsessions-compulsions but do them anyway because of anxiety (if the individual actually likes being obsessive-compulsive and it drives everyone else crazy then it's not OCD).

Something to consider, in Physics they make operational definitions for measuring things like time in seconds and distance with meters. How do you prove one second is one second and one meter one meter? One second being one second is an arbitrary definition agreed on by others that you can't make falsifiable. Science obviously allows operational definitions because you need them to use the scientific method to test for patterns, for example the relationship between exponential decay you need to set out how time is to be measured. You can't do this unless scientists come to a consensus for definitions of measurement, even if arbitrarily set and someone else thinks one second should be set as two seconds. Although this analogy of physics doesn't exactly carry over, the big picture is it's arbitrary to say that person who checks the same lock for an hour straight each day with two hour showers and extreme anxiety has a so called "disorder", however once there's the label for a diagnosis of OCD one can use the scientific method to test for specific patterns and experimental-control treatments to put in peer-review journals. I'm not very into abnormal psychology, but it has uses.

 

[cronxeh]

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.

 

[Sorry!]

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.

It has made for some interesting films/stories though...

I don't really have enough knowledge in chemistry or economics so I'm not even going to bother listing out how I view 'hard' vs 'soft' sciences.

 

[27Thousand]

That's not a complete sentence...

I think there's a misunderstanding. I wasn't saying that physics is the same accurateness as the social sciences, and not saying there isn't a difference in adherence to the scientific method, but that it's not the distinguishing line.

For example, in Science they have a principle of experimental-control where if you have two groups the same and the researcher manipulates one variable, then there's a cause-effect relationship. Just like they use this in the medical field, many fields of psychology are quite big in extensive experimental-control studies, while some areas of astronomy/geology rely mostly on observational studies. However, that doesn't mean those areas of astronomy/geology are soft. As far as relying on direct observation rather than indirect, in biology they can actually see cells and mitochondrial, while in physics no one has ever seen an electron under an electron microscope nor even gravitation itself (only the effects of gravitation and many say Einstein's General Relativity replaced Newton's theory of gravitation being a force and many say it could be Quantum Gravitation instead). However, everyone knows physics is more hard than biology. Although the equations in physics are much much more accurate/universal then the ones in economics, economics has more equations mentioned in their peer-review journal articles. For economics using more equations than physics in their peer-review journals --> Arsenault, D.J.; Smith, L.D.; Beauchamp, E.A. (2006). Visual Inscriptions in the Scientific Hierarchy-Mapping the Treasures of Science. Science Communication, Vol. 27(3), p.376-428.

Obviously physics is a much harder science than economics and is able to make much more precise predictions.

 

[Zubin]

I believe the OP is trying to make the distinction between natural science, formal science, social science, and applied science.
Here's a link that describes how different fields of science are grouped:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_science

 

[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?