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€“] 4 points 6 months ago

There are lots of scientific groups that work in the so called soft sciences that apply the usual methods of the hard sciences. It's not about soft or hard, it's about good or bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •