7
Should "soft science" be considered real science? (lemmychan.org)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

spoilerPersonally? No, absolutely not. There should be no differentiating between what can be measured, and what cannot.

I can't help but look at the reproducibility issue in "Psychology" and notice, what did they do about it? Nothing. It just exists. It's not real science.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

No.

Unless it can be imperically proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to remove human bias, say, like politics, et al. Otherwise it is glorified opinion. A lot of soft science is so-called science by committee.

Hard science already has an existing problem of soft science think-creep as it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •