4 ms·

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

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)
crimsonalucard 8y ago
This is utterly incorrect. You can disagree with people without being rude. You cannot call an idea itself insulting unless you yourself are a biased person. Ideas in itself are just statements with no malevolence intended. Only people can express malevolence. I don't agree with him. But I see where he's coming from. A lot of biology is just observing behavior and documenting observations. It is very different from employing the scientific method in an experiment. It is also very different from trying to quantify everything. The line between hard and soft is blurry.

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)

crimsonalucard 8y ago

This is utterly incorrect. You can disagree with people without being rude. You cannot call an idea itself insulting unless you yourself are a biased person. Ideas in itself are just statements with no malevolence intended. Only people can express malevolence. I don't agree with him. But I see where he's coming from. A lot of biology is just observing behavior and documenting observations. It is very different from employing the scientific method in an experiment. It is also very different from trying to quantify everything. The line between hard and soft is blurry.