|
|
|
|
|
|
by ruthmarx
633 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
> 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.