|
When you get down to the basics of quantum mechanics, it looks a lot like psychological research. With QM, you are looking at an electron and probability statements. You just never know where or when that sucker is. All we have to go by, because of the uncertainty principle, is statistical probability. It is much the same way with psychology. We can't make a 100% accurate prediction, we just take a "guess," guided by our research.
Anyway, it seems that the point at which hard and soft science diverges according to you guys is whether or not mathematical models are used after the experimental research. For instance, both physics and psychology would test theories in the same way (comparing null and alternative hypotheses). This is what makes them science. Pshysics is then a hard science because the theoretical models allow a mathematical formula to be employed in oprder to make the prediction. f=ma is used because the principles behind it were shown to have validity. In psychology, we don't really have any tidy formulas that allow us to make clear predictions. Rather, at least in clinical psychology, we have to use probability judgements and try to acknowledge other variables. This is a very messy process and I would say it is much harder to work with than the hard science formulas (okay, I am being tongue in cheek at that last line. my roommate in college was a physics major and that junk looked damn hard).
|