Comments on: The Really Hard Science

By: Brian Gerion Cardis

Brian Gerion Cardis — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:06:09 +0000

I have a doubt. Three decades ago who created this sciences rank (hard-medium-soft) ? I know what is but there are a lack from this source/origin.

Thanks.

By: Broughton

Broughton — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:31:26 +0000

The soft sciences are soft because of the irresponsibility of social “scientists” and the like. For example, they unashamedly abuse mathematics by using opinion polls to generate unitless numbers which they then feed into spreadsheets, adding apples and oranges, to support their wild left-wing hypotheses. Until some intellectual rigor and standardization and adherance to the scientific method are introduced into the social sciences, I fear the word “soft” is the mildest of the pejoratives they deserve.

By: gerry

gerry — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:00:14 +0000

I am really disappointed that Shermer understood hard sciences as difficult to do, and soft sciences as easy to do.

When I first met that distinction I already read and correctly that hard sciences are hard in the sense that they are based on facts, while soft sciences are based on opinions.

Then also hard sciences are very precise while soft sciences are very imprecise.

Consider the theory of evolution that is an example of soft science which is similar to psychoanalysis, but the theory of relativity that is really hard science.

How is that?

See any precision in the theory of evolution and any genuine facts in evolution? It is no different in its essence from psychoanalysis

Now, compare the precision in the theory of relativity and the genuine facts it is founded upon.

What precision are we talking about?

Think mathematics.

What facts are we talking about?

What about the speed of light in the theory of relativity, and the opinion in the theory of evolution: that with billions of years by chance a new species will appear from an earlier species, that is supposed to be a fact in the theory of evolution.

I am really disappointed that Shermer missed the true and original meaning of the distinction between hard sciences and soft sciences of which the theory of evolution is glaringly one very soft science.

gerry

By: vivek v raykar

vivek v raykar — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:58:26 +0000

I like concept of integrative science.Just to think of random examples that come to my mind are writers such as Jacob bronowski,Lewis thomas and Oliver sachs.I will like to broaden the concept to mean integrative knowledge since divisions such as science,history,philosophy are made for producers of knowledge and not for curious ,inquisitive and polymath minds who consume them.

By: Shermer on Science « Complex Adaptive Systems

Shermer on Science « Complex Adaptive Systems — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:02:10 +0000

[...] or perish” dictum in academia for this trend to continue. Michael Shermer wrote a recent Scientific American article which makes the case well and calls for more integrative and narrative scientific [...]

By: Juan Carlos Marvizon

Juan Carlos Marvizon — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:45:46 +0000

I wholeheartedly agree with the importance of popularizing science. However, we should be careful to distinguish between scientific theories and the ideologies masquerading as science that we often find in popular science books. For example, both Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker propose an ideology in which humans are controlled by the genes, leading to a pessimistic and deterministic view of human nature. The science purported to support this ideology is in fact quite weak. For example, in “The Selfish Gene” Dawkins use a definition of gene that is circular with his theory and totally at odds with the modern definition of gene as a segment of DNA encoding a protein. Science writers should have the honesty to establish a clear distinction between they scientific theories they explain and the ideas that they think are supported by them.

By: John C. Wheeler

John C. Wheeler — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:49:45 +0000

I am a theoretical physical chemist. I’ve worked in and taught statistical mechanics and thermodynamics of phase
transitions for most of my life. I have always understood
the terms “hard” and “soft” in describing the sciences as
referring to the sharpness with which one can distinguish correct from incorrect theories in that science. That is, how definitely one falsify a theory. In physics, theories make predictions of almost incredible precision, so that if the theory is wrong, it is very clear that it’s wrong and by just how much. As one moves to chemistry, the situation becomes a bit more blurry. It used to be that this was even truer of biology, although starting with Darwin, and increasingly with the advent of genetics, biochemistry, the
recognition of the role of DNA in heredity, biology has
become a much “harder” science in this sense. I think you create a straw man when you criticize the terms “hard” and “soft” science in terms of the difficulty or ease of doing the science.

By: John Beck

John Beck — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:58:10 +0000

I have a handful of comments …

First, allow me to ‘second the opinion’ of Bryan. The dichotomy is ‘hard v soft’ – not ‘hard v easy’. I have interpreted this as referring to how well developed the ‘paradigms’ (to use a term from Kuhn) of the field is.
As an example, Biology became more ‘hardened’ when it adopted evolution and again with the discovery of DNA. These crystallized the field and helped define what questions a Biologist asks. Physics started becoming ‘hardened’ in the era of Newton. Sociology is still searching for those central paradigms.

Second, I disagree slightly with Dr. Shermer’s statement:
If you cannot tell a good story about your data
and theory [...] then your science is incomplete.

For me the theory *is* the story. A theory, in science, is a model or explanation of how a particular phenomenon ‘works’. In that sense it is a story about the phenomenon. I do agree with the idea that without a story (theory) the science is incomplete. After all, the goal of science is to explain, IOW: produce theories.

Third, popular science writing and scientific papers have two very different purposes. Comparing them is comparing apples and oranges. Popular science writing is basically informal science education -it is more similar to science textbooks than science journals. Scientific papers are part of the scientific process – scientists communicate their observations, explanations, etc to each other so the community can develop theories. Science is a communal effort after all – and since the members of the community are often spread across the globe science papers are the primary method of communication. Asking which is more important popular science writing or scientific papers is tantamount to: which is more important science education or scientific research. Of course, Dr. Shermer gets it right: there is nothing to teach if we don’t do research and there’s not point in making discoveries if we don’t teach people about it.

Fourth, I strongly agree that popularizing science is not well respected. I am the Education and Public Outreach representative for my research group (I am also a research scientist and instructor). I have a hard time convincing my colleagues to speak to the public – most do not see that it is worth their time; some have tried to talk me out of doing Public Outreach – after all, tenure is not awarded based on how many appearances one makes on TV.

Still, we need to convey scientific theories and principles to the general public for their good as well as our own.

By: J.P. McLaughlin

J.P. McLaughlin — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:17:02 +0000

Isaac Asimov knew the importance of popular science writing so well that he devoted his life to it after starting out as a “hard” scientist. Who in their right mind could denigrate his contributions to our understanding and enjoyment of the sciences. Stephen Jay Gould was cut from the same cloth, and who can forget the sheer poetry of Loren Eiseley’s writings? I miss them all and am thankful for those who carry the tradition forward. They are of vital important to all Americans and all human beings if we are to survive in this world.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:36:41 +0000

This seems slightly odd. I agree about the merits of popular science, “integrative science” and most of what this article discusses. But I never thought hard and soft sciences meant what Shermer assumes. Its not a description of their difficulty, but their “solidness”. “Hard” sciences are more firm, “soft” sciences are more pliable. That definition also deserves criticism and would make for an interesting article, but thats what the term always meant to me.