4 ms·

If it is not a hard science, then it is likely a variant of philosophy.

by failwhaleshark 5y ago

ouid 5y ago
I think you could effectively argue that mathematics is a branch of philosophy.
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  You can construct proofs for mathematics, but not for the existence or refutation of a divine creator.
  - Afton 5y ago
    I think you have a narrow view of philosophy. Very little modern philosophy has anything to do with that kind of question.
    - failwhaleshark 5y ago
      Nope, you're projecting and using a strawman. That's not the point. :)
  - bfors 5y ago
    True, but with math you also eventually get down to axioms that can't be proven.
    - rajin444 5y ago
      I don't think we know if we can know everything or not. That seems like _the_ question to answer.
      - kirubakaran 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...
Blikkentrekker 5y ago
What is a “hard science”? The only distinction I care about is exactness and non-exactness. Is the research based upon formulating a theory that is capable of forecassting not-yet observed events a nonexistent, exact margin or error, and are the conditions then re-created to see if the forecast is within the margin of error that the instruments that measure it have? Some say biology is “hard”, and some say it is “soft”; some say many parts of cosmology are “hard” but they certainly aren't “exact”. In exact science there are typically multiple ways to derive the same answer within one theory, and they all result into the exact same result.
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  This has been answered a million times before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
  - Blikkentrekker 5y ago
    And it starts with that the terms are colloquial and bereft o an actually hard definition. “colloquial”, “roughly”, ”perceived”. — these are not the terms that definitions are made of. The point is that there is no actual hard distinction between “hard science” and “soft science” but there is a hard distinction between an exact theory, and an inexact theory.
    - username90 5y ago
      There is no exact science, physics isn't an exact science either. You need softer definitions like "Hard" and "Soft" precisely because there are no exact results in any science we have. And it is fine to use soft definitions for these things since categorising scientific fields doesn't need to be a science. A hard science is where replication is expected to never fail, if replication fails once then the theory is thrown out. Applying that to social science studies would seem ridiculous, no social scientist would want that, so they want their field to be soft.
      - 5y ago

If it is not a hard science, then it is likely a variant of philosophy.

ouid 5y ago

I think you could effectively argue that mathematics is a branch of philosophy.

failwhaleshark 5y ago
You can construct proofs for mathematics, but not for the existence or refutation of a divine creator.
- Afton 5y ago
  I think you have a narrow view of philosophy. Very little modern philosophy has anything to do with that kind of question.
  - failwhaleshark 5y ago
    Nope, you're projecting and using a strawman. That's not the point. :)
- bfors 5y ago
  True, but with math you also eventually get down to axioms that can't be proven.
  - rajin444 5y ago
    I don't think we know if we can know everything or not. That seems like _the_ question to answer.
    - kirubakaran 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...

Blikkentrekker 5y ago

What is a “hard science”? The only distinction I care about is exactness and non-exactness. Is the research based upon formulating a theory that is capable of forecassting not-yet observed events a nonexistent, exact margin or error, and are the conditions then re-created to see if the forecast is within the margin of error that the instruments that measure it have? Some say biology is “hard”, and some say it is “soft”; some say many parts of cosmology are “hard” but they certainly aren't “exact”. In exact science there are typically multiple ways to derive the same answer within one theory, and they all result into the exact same result.

failwhaleshark 5y ago
This has been answered a million times before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
- Blikkentrekker 5y ago
  And it starts with that the terms are colloquial and bereft o an actually hard definition. “colloquial”, “roughly”, ”perceived”. — these are not the terms that definitions are made of. The point is that there is no actual hard distinction between “hard science” and “soft science” but there is a hard distinction between an exact theory, and an inexact theory.
  - username90 5y ago
    There is no exact science, physics isn't an exact science either. You need softer definitions like "Hard" and "Soft" precisely because there are no exact results in any science we have. And it is fine to use soft definitions for these things since categorising scientific fields doesn't need to be a science. A hard science is where replication is expected to never fail, if replication fails once then the theory is thrown out. Applying that to social science studies would seem ridiculous, no social scientist would want that, so they want their field to be soft.
    - 5y ago