[davorak]

> It's not so uncommon in science to come to a strange conclusion by excluding all "reasonable" alternatives.

That is not what happen in the article, or to my understanding in this field of research.

> For example, black holes have a similar status: no one has conclusively seen one, but we know of no mechanism for matter to support itself beyond a certain density, so black hole it is.

Comparing the equation based methods of physics, often called a "hard" science, to neurology or biology, often called a a "soft" science, is not going to be an apples to apples comparison.

[ruthmarx]

> neurology or biology, often called a a "soft" science,

Neurology and biology are absolutely hard sciences, just as hard as physics.

[dekhn]

No, absolutely not.

(my phd is in biophysics; I've worked across many different fields)

[ruthmarx]

Yes, they absolutely are. Congrats on your PhD.

Hard sciences are simply those that can be tested and verified. Biology and neurology fall into this category.

Soft sciences are those that don't lend themselves to testing and verification very well, like economics and psychology.

This is pretty cut and dry. It's not like trying to argue if Star Wars is sci-fi or not or something.

[dekhn]

There is a continuum of hardness within the quantitative sciences, and physics definitely lies on the "more testable and verifiable" than chemistry, biology, and neuroscience (not neurology- that's a form of medicine). Many of the biological systems we work with, we don't even really test and verify, especially not at the level that a large-scale particle physics experiment would.

If you want to insist that biology is as testable and verifiable as physics, I have no interest in arguing with you- it's just a difference of opinion (and I think people with experience across the continuum would agree with me).

[ruthmarx]

> If you want to insist that biology is as testable and verifiable as physics, I have no interest in arguing with you- it's just a difference of opinion

I just think the whole "There is a continuum of hardness within the quantitative sciences" is irrelevant. It's more of a binary thing, and biology is a hard science, period. But sure, we can agree to disagree.

Without any doubt though, biology is not a 'soft' science.

[davorak]

You seem to agree that the testability is not binary:

> Soft sciences are those that don't lend themselves to testing and verification very well, like economics and psychology.

But want hard to only used in a binary fashion with some heuristic triggering the step function from soft to hard.

People do talk using the term that way. They also use it as a continuum saying one field is harder than an another. I quoted the terms, "hard" and "soft" in my message above because the terms are used in a few different ways and are not rigorously defined. They only need a rough definition to make the point I was making though.

[77pt77]

> Neurology and biology are absolutely hard sciences

Sometimes.

> just as hard as physics.

No. Not even close.

[anthk]

Neurology maybe, specially with the book "The Rhythms of The Brain". Still far from pure Physics.

Biology it's more about classification/sorting than Math.

[ruthmarx]

> Sometimes.

No, always. No exceptions.

> No. Not even close.

It's exactly equal because it's a category not a scale and certainly not a competition.

Hard sciences are those that can be tested and verified. Biology, neurology and physicals all meet that criteria, and thus are all hard.

Soft sciences are those that are harder to test, like economics and psychology.