4 ms·

I am using this definition: >"Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, p

by nonbel 8y ago

I am using this definition: >"Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science That same page does group biology in with physics and chemistry, but with no justification. From personal experience biology is much closer to a social science than it is to physics. I mean, most people who study biology-related stuff "hate math".

OskarS 8y ago
Are you honestly saying that medicine (a branch of biology) is not a "hard science"? That epidemiology, or genetics, or oncology isn't? Are you saying that when Crick and Watson deduced the structure of DNA based on the X-ray diffraction work done by Rosalind Franklin, they were not doing "hard science"? Hell, go back further: consider Mendel's discovery of the rules of genetic inheritance (and thus founding the field of genetics) by painstakingly planting, replanting, combing and recombining pea plants. It's hard to imagine a more pure and rigorous application of the scientific method, in any field. I'm sorry, but your position is beyond absurd. Even the page you link disagrees with you. It sounds very much like you once met a biologist who said that they didn't very much like math, and since then you've carried a personal prejudice against biologists. You admit as much in your comment.
- hitekker 8y ago
  Just move on. Someone made a lazy and uninformed opinion and then, instead of admiting fault or walking away, they struggled to justify their own ignorance. Ironically in the same vein as the OP article!
  - OskarS 8y ago
    Good advice.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    Interesting you concluded my opinion was lazy and uninformed when I was the one sharing links and references. That behavior usually indicates the opposite. Indeed, that heuristic would be correct in this case. Not that it matters to the point, but I have a PhD in a biomedical field and spent many years working in it before I quit because I got fed up with how "soft" it was. The sad part is it will never improve to become a "hard science" if people think it already is one. I mean really think about it. Biology is the study of how complex systems change over time, yet learning the primary tool we have to study/analyze change (calculus) is not a prerequisite. Doesn't that seem strange for a "hard science"?
  - crimsonalucard 8y ago
    This comment is insulting and rude. There are other ways to inform someone that you think he is wrong while being civil and mature. That being said I get where the commenter is coming from. Much of biology is a qualitative science. Darwin's evolution was originally elucidated through descriptions not hard numbers and statistics. Taxonomy in zoology is also largely qualitative.
    - hitekker 8y ago
      That comment was only insulting if you believe that biology is not a hard science; an idea which is itself insulting, dismissive and farcical. But, if a person does share that opinion, I can see how that person might be inclined to ignore tone, and focus on supporting that opinion.
      - nonbel 8y ago
        Sometimes reality can make people feel bad, that doesn't mean we should try to ignore it. Lets take the cancer research example. Using this definition: >"Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science 1) Producing testable predictions --- The predictions are almost all vague, of the form "x will be correlated to some degree with y". 2) Performing controlled experiments --- Maybe, but I very often see that proper blinding procedures were not used. 3) Relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models --- Mathematical models are rarely used to make precise testable predictions. --- There was some progress on this front from Armitage and Doll way back in 1954 but interest has largely fizzled out. 4) A high degree of accuracy and objectivity --- As mentioned in #1 and #3, making a precise prediction at all is rare. Accuracy doesnt matter much if you predict vague stuff. 5) Higher levels of consensus --- Not sure this should be here. "Hard" vs "soft" is a matter of the procedures used, not the results. 6) Faster progression of the field --- Not sure this should be here. "Hard" vs "soft" is a matter of the procedures used, not the results. 7) Greater explanatory success --- Not sure this should be here. "Hard" vs "soft" is a matter of the procedures used, not the results. 8) Cumulativeness --- The more research that has been done on cancer the more complex things have gotten, to the point where now they say "cancer is many diseases". This is the opposite of what happens when you gain a cumulative understanding and figure out "natural laws" that make things easier to understand. 9) Replicability --- Seems to be well less than 50% of studies can be repeated (see my links here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18578282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18578282)
claudiawerner 8y ago
>"Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method." This describes some of the mathematical economics I've read.
- nonbel 8y ago
  Can you give an example of a testable prediction?
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    That there is a general tendency for the rate of profit across society to fall with time, subject to certain countervailing measures.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      I would have preferred a reference to the paper making the prediction, but that sounds very vague so whatever.

by nonbel 8y ago

OskarS 8y ago

Are you honestly saying that medicine (a branch of biology) is not a "hard science"? That epidemiology, or genetics, or oncology isn't? Are you saying that when Crick and Watson deduced the structure of DNA based on the X-ray diffraction work done by Rosalind Franklin, they were not doing "hard science"? Hell, go back further: consider Mendel's discovery of the rules of genetic inheritance (and thus founding the field of genetics) by painstakingly planting, replanting, combing and recombining pea plants. It's hard to imagine a more pure and rigorous application of the scientific method, in any field. I'm sorry, but your position is beyond absurd. Even the page you link disagrees with you. It sounds very much like you once met a biologist who said that they didn't very much like math, and since then you've carried a personal prejudice against biologists. You admit as much in your comment.

hitekker 8y ago
Just move on. Someone made a lazy and uninformed opinion and then, instead of admiting fault or walking away, they struggled to justify their own ignorance. Ironically in the same vein as the OP article!
- OskarS 8y ago
  Good advice.
- nonbel 8y ago
  Interesting you concluded my opinion was lazy and uninformed when I was the one sharing links and references. That behavior usually indicates the opposite. Indeed, that heuristic would be correct in this case. Not that it matters to the point, but I have a PhD in a biomedical field and spent many years working in it before I quit because I got fed up with how "soft" it was. The sad part is it will never improve to become a "hard science" if people think it already is one. I mean really think about it. Biology is the study of how complex systems change over time, yet learning the primary tool we have to study/analyze change (calculus) is not a prerequisite. Doesn't that seem strange for a "hard science"?
- crimsonalucard 8y ago
  This comment is insulting and rude. There are other ways to inform someone that you think he is wrong while being civil and mature. That being said I get where the commenter is coming from. Much of biology is a qualitative science. Darwin's evolution was originally elucidated through descriptions not hard numbers and statistics. Taxonomy in zoology is also largely qualitative.
  - hitekker 8y ago
    That comment was only insulting if you believe that biology is not a hard science; an idea which is itself insulting, dismissive and farcical. But, if a person does share that opinion, I can see how that person might be inclined to ignore tone, and focus on supporting that opinion.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      Sometimes reality can make people feel bad, that doesn't mean we should try to ignore it. Lets take the cancer research example. Using this definition: >"Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science 1) Producing testable predictions --- The predictions are almost all vague, of the form "x will be correlated to some degree with y". 2) Performing controlled experiments --- Maybe, but I very often see that proper blinding procedures were not used. 3) Relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models --- Mathematical models are rarely used to make precise testable predictions. --- There was some progress on this front from Armitage and Doll way back in 1954 but interest has largely fizzled out. 4) A high degree of accuracy and objectivity --- As mentioned in #1 and #3, making a precise prediction at all is rare. Accuracy doesnt matter much if you predict vague stuff. 5) Higher levels of consensus --- Not sure this should be here. "Hard" vs "soft" is a matter of the procedures used, not the results. 6) Faster progression of the field --- Not sure this should be here. "Hard" vs "soft" is a matter of the procedures used, not the results. 7) Greater explanatory success --- Not sure this should be here. "Hard" vs "soft" is a matter of the procedures used, not the results. 8) Cumulativeness --- The more research that has been done on cancer the more complex things have gotten, to the point where now they say "cancer is many diseases". This is the opposite of what happens when you gain a cumulative understanding and figure out "natural laws" that make things easier to understand. 9) Replicability --- Seems to be well less than 50% of studies can be repeated (see my links here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18578282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18578282)

claudiawerner 8y ago

>"Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method." This describes some of the mathematical economics I've read.

nonbel 8y ago
Can you give an example of a testable prediction?
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  That there is a general tendency for the rate of profit across society to fall with time, subject to certain countervailing measures.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    I would have preferred a reference to the paper making the prediction, but that sounds very vague so whatever.