On a side note, other than therapists, do any people in the world actually consider therapists to be scientists? I'm not being a dick, that thought simply never crossed my mind. It's like saying the meter maid is a scientist of coin operated theory. Therapists certainly help people, but so do teachers. Teachers aren't scientists either, though they need to both teach science and occasionally apply the scientific theory.
therapist != scientist
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
Sure, I can compare them. I can also compare the methods used by a PhD in physics to the methods used by a Phd in a social science.
I don't understand what you mean.
|
Well, obviously you CAN. I can compare turds to flying pigs. It doesn't make it a useful comparison. I would think there'd be a higher level of contrast than comparison. But this is pretty much the stereotype from which came the saying "apples to oranges".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
I think that you place too much faith in the greater "proof" offered by "hard" sciences. I also think that your description of hard science versus soft science reflects many of the statements about the distinction between hard and soft that I made above. Independent of your wiki reference, I stand by my statement that the "hard" versus "soft" distinction is not useful.
|
Hard sciences tend to work in theories and proofs. Soft sciences tend to work simply in theories. At least from my perception. There are certainly "proofs" in biology, but they seem much more fluid. There are a lot of things we don't understand about, say, subatomic mechanics. There are far FEWER things we understand about genetics (to this day).