11-01-2007, 02:55 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
The problem with the softer "sciences" is that they are more susceptible to the personal biases of the scientist, so when Michael Quinn goes down that life path that results in his excommunication, people are going to be naturally extra suspicious of his research and conclusions, even moreso than from someone that has never been a member of the church.
|
11-01-2007, 02:58 PM | #22 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
All science operates based on working assumptions. The harder science have working assumptions that are more easily testable or verifiable, whereas the softer ones have what appear reasonable but in fact are often times very tenuous.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
11-01-2007, 03:08 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
Quote:
|
|
11-01-2007, 03:12 PM | #24 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Or, quantitative data is more reliable over time than qualitative assessments.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
11-01-2007, 03:30 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
"falsifiable" is a more appropriate word than "verifiable." Nothing is verifiable, per Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
This is how I see the hierarchy of hardness: 1. Sciences that can be lab-tested, hence variables isolated. You can predict with precision the outcome of an event. 2. Sciences that cannot be lab-tested, but variables can be isolated to some degree by examining data. No exact predictions, but you can predict that the outcome will fall within a certain range at a high probability. 3. Sciences that rely on comparisons of small numbers of observations or case studies. These researchers often commit egregious methodological errors. 4. Warm-fuzzy pseudo-science like literary criticism or historical criticism where researchers have nothing better to do than deconstruct and pretend they know things they can't really know.
__________________
太初有道 Last edited by ChinoCoug; 11-01-2007 at 03:34 PM. |
Bookmarks |
|
|