Hard science, soft science, hardware, software by John D. Cook.
The post starts:
The hard sciences — physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. — boasted remarkable achievements in the 20th century. The credibility and prestige of all science went up as a result. Academic disciplines outside the sciences rushed to append “science” to their names to share in the glory.
Science has an image of infallibility based on the success of the hard sciences. When someone says “You can’t argue with science,” I’d rather they said “It’s difficult to argue with hard science.”
Read on….
I think…, well, you decide on John’s basic point for yourself.
Personally I think the world is complicated, historically, linguistically, semantically, theologically, etc. I am much happier searching in hopes of answers that seem adequate for the moment, as opposed to seeking certitudes, particularly for others.
I couldn’t agree with him more. I’ve always thought that any field that calls itself “X science” is not science at all, and that’s why they’re using that name, basically to “borrow” credibility.
Comment by larsga@garshol.priv.no — March 9, 2012 @ 3:31 am
@larsga +1!
I like that: ‘to “borrow” credibility.”
Comment by Patrick Durusau — March 9, 2012 @ 11:31 am