Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daswig
Hard science is differentiated from soft science in that hard science can be demonstrated in a laboratory. If somebody comes out and offers a theory in a hard science, and another party demonstrates that the theory is wrong, that's the end of the theory in hard science. That's not true with soft sciences. For example: If guy A says "put X and Y together and reaction Z will occur", and somebody puts X and Y together and gets Q, that's all she wrote.
I polled three years worth of her students within the department for a paper I wrote for another class. It worked out to a sample size of around 600 people total of both genders and all races. After I submitted the paper to her colleague, I gave her a copy and asked her if she had any comment, and she explained her policy to me. WRT her being upset, we met when she came to me in an official capacity trying to place interns.
I rest my case.
Did you read the entire CIA report that came out shortly before the election? It referenced a storage bunker of WMDs that remains under UN seal and that hasn't been dealt with because they don't know how to do it safely.
Actually, I'm referring to things like the America-bashing speech he gave on campus that was broadcast on C-span last week. It was put on using University facilities, with campus police providing security, et cetera.
|
You seem to hold a very truncated view of "hard" sciences. First of all, the first tenet of science, hard or soft, would be to create taxonomies. To categorize them and render them into some sort of interpretive schema. As research progresses, the classic taxonomies have become increasingly problematized and a plethora of research now questions the arbitrary nature of classification in various disciplines.
In the case of physics or chemistry, there is no such thing as direct observation of something like a quark or electron. You need to update your model. Scientists are not standing around mixing two different colors in test tubes to prove or, more accurately, disprove anything. And why would you think that a contrived laboratory environment even approximates objective reality?
I'd like to read your methodology section, your paper sounds very interesting.
I don't know what you are resting your case on in regards to the marxist statements you made. My questions demonstrate your point to your understanding of marxist perspective? Perhaps your perspective is off.
I didn't read any CIA report. I just took what the president and his staff said at face value: that they hadn't found any WMD's.
Now you've got me curious how much tax payers' dollars went into the function you were referencing. Since my understanding is that even 'public' schools derive large portions of their budgets from private sources, I'm curious what information you used to make your fact claim. Or was that mere speculation that the function was funded by public money?
I've seen you attribute very mundane questions about this government and nation's actions to "America-bashing" so I don't even know which of the content you objected to and I'll have to reserve comment on that portion until you explain yourself with something of substance rather than insinuation.