Anthropology, Religion and Science

[Indy Coug]

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

Maybe stating the same thing another way, in order to help me, but it seems the softer science rely upon more assumptions which are not verifiable.

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.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Maybe stating the same thing another way, in order to help me, but it seems the softer science rely upon more assumptions which are not verifiable.

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.

Quantitative data > Qualitative data

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Quantitative data > Qualitative data

Or, quantitative data is more reliable over time than qualitative assessments.

[ChinoCoug]

"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.