[pinkmuffinere]

> There are a lot of "soft" sciences that get increasingly softer every year. Social sciences, gender and women's studies, political science, some of the fast and loose use of "economics" these days.

I don’t think anyone is claiming these are sciences, except perhaps economics. I think you’re fighting a straw man

[codexb]

People get doctorates in these fields and post studies in journals that get picked up by thinktanks and media outlets. It's "science" for all intents and purposes; they're used as a source of authority based on data and analysis and formal papers.

[pinkmuffinere]

I think your objection is that these fields inform policy and other decisions, and you feel that only science should do that. I think I disagree that only science should inform decisions. Non-science things can inform decisions, we’re generally opposed to murder/racism/bigotry even though there’s no double blind study we can run to determine the correct morality. These fields can impact decisions, and yet not be “science”

[1attice]

"science for all intents and purposes" is the most accidentally flattering anyone has said, and is hilarious in context. Wasn't expecting women's studies to get glazed on HN but I'm here for it :)

Need that on a tee

[cyanydeez]

you keep fighting a strawman that appears to be 'wokism'.

Just so we know you're talking about a real thing, point us to a data and analysis formal paper that you believe exemplary of the "science"