You absolutely do lol, or you're just straight wrong. Take your pick.
> The problem with “soft sciences” is that they can’t produce provably correct information.
Neither can hard sciences. Proofs are incompatible with empiricism. Abductive proofs (which is what the scientific process offers) are necessarily bounded by limited certainty. All you can do is progressively improve certainty approaching 100%, but reaching it is necessarily impossible. This is just basic Hume. You can never be 100% sure the sun will rise tomorrow or that the fundamental laws of physics won't arbitrarily change.
But, the same applies to soft sciences. We can and do increase our certainty continually. This is absolutely worthwhile and is probably far more valuable to humanity than merely modelling physical phenomena.
This is false, an obvious counter-example is an explanation that happens to be coincidentally correct (without being derived from any science)
-
This seems like an attack on the notion of objective truth which while interesting in the abstract, is not particularly interesting to me personally.
How can you establish "correctness" without something like the scientific method? How do you even bind loosely-defined english to verifiable claims to real-life referents without agreeing with others on terms? No, you're chosen simple, comforting delusion over anything resembling objective truth.
> This seems like an attack on the notion of objective truth
Yes, truth is an apriori concept; objective truth is a silly delusion. Coherence is generally a much stronger concept anyway.
I don't see how you can say this, would you prefer to live 200 years ago before hard sciences had started changing peoples lives? Almost every convenience you see around you exists thanks to hard sciences.
My point was not to reject hard sciences so much as to emphasize you can't easily extract the consequences of them in isolation. It's nearly futile to even try. My apologies for poorly articulating this.
What do you mean by this? the field of psychology is perfectly capable of policing itself, and it's rejected much of the conclusions of its historical predecessors.
> In order for the same to be true for the hard sciences we would need to be failing to replicate experiments which hinge on germ theory, atomic theory, the standard model, etc.
"hard sciences" also fail to produce results relevant to most people. Sure, they can maybe make better batteries, but how can they explain how dysfunctional society is?
EDIT: We can also directly blame the poor communicational skills of "hard sciences" for diet culture. "hard sciences" have failed in their efforts to produce a population that can reason about nutrition in an evidence-backed manner, and this can be traced directly to how scientists choose to present their data.