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
[โ€“] 16 points 6 months ago

Yes. "Hard" sciences aren't as perfectly objective like TV would have one believe. Plenty of hard sciences are affected by the replication crisis, like geology and astronomy where one can't set up controlled experiments, same as soft sciences. All of them should strive to develop the best model, break the model, improve the model, repeat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •