Re:20 Years Later
by cycomanic on Wednesday December 30, 2020 @03:05AM
(#25579627)
I was assuming hard science here (considering that's what the article was about). I agree with you that in the broader sciences this is a different debate. That said I do not share the distain for the "softer" sciences often found in the hard sciences. -- a bit of the side note I find the disregard for softer sciences much stronger among engineers than scientists. It seems to me that engineers are often much more outcome focused in their work, while e.g. physicist are much more tolerant towards research towards expanding knowledge which they also apply to other fields
[ Parent
| on HN ]
> I do not share the distain for the "softer" sciences often found in the hard sciences
It depends on what the disdain is based on. If the disdain is just based on "your field isn't physics (or chemistry, etc.)", I agree that's not justified. But if the disdain is based on "your models don't make good predictions", I think it's justified. Scientific models are supposed to be judged based on whether or not they make good predictions; if they don't, they're wrong. Models that make good predictions are much, much rarer in the "soft" sciences--many such fields basically have no models with any predictive power at all, yet their proponents claim they are "sciences" and want their models to be used to, for example, make public policy.