Hard and soft science

Last updated

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity. [1] [2] [3] In general, the formal sciences and natural sciences are considered hard science, whereas the social sciences and other sciences are described as soft science. [4]

Contents

Precise definitions vary, [5] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, cumulativeness, replicability, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method. [2] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] A closely related idea (originating in the nineteenth century with Auguste Comte) is that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as rigor, "development", and whether they are basic or applied. [5] [13]

Philosophers and historians of science have questioned the relationship between these characteristics and perceived hardness or softness. The more "developed" hard sciences do not necessarily have a greater degree of consensus or selectivity in accepting new results. [6] Commonly cited methodological differences are also not a reliable indicator. For example, social sciences such as psychology and sociology use mathematical models extensively, but are usually considered soft sciences. [1] [2] However, there are some measurable differences between hard and soft sciences. For example, hard sciences make more extensive use of graphs, [5] [14] and soft sciences are more prone to a rapid turnover of buzzwords. [15]

The metaphor has been criticised for unduly stigmatizing soft sciences, creating an unwarranted imbalance in the public perception, funding, and recognition of different fields. [2] [3] [16]

History of the terms

The origin of the terms "hard science" and "soft science" is obscure. The earliest attested use of "hard science" is found in an 1858 issue of the Journal of the Society of Arts, [17] [18] but the idea of a hierarchy of the sciences can be found earlier, in the work of the French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798‒1857). He identified astronomy as the most general science, [note 1] followed by physics, chemistry, biology, then sociology. This view was highly influential, and was intended to classify fields based on their degree of intellectual development and the complexity of their subject matter. [6]

The modern distinction between hard and soft science is often attributed to a 1964 article published in Science by John R. Platt. He explored why he considered some scientific fields to be more productive than others, though he did not actually use the terms themselves. [19] [20] In 1967, sociologist of science Norman W. Storer specifically distinguished between the natural sciences as hard and the social sciences as soft. He defined hardness in terms of the degree to which a field uses mathematics and described a trend of scientific fields increasing in hardness over time, identifying features of increased hardness as including better integration and organization of knowledge, an improved ability to detect errors, and an increase in the difficulty of learning the subject. [6] [21]

Empirical support

In the 1970s sociologist Stephen Cole conducted a number of empirical studies attempting to find evidence for a hierarchy of scientific disciplines, and was unable to find significant differences in terms of core of knowledge, degree of codification, or research material. Differences that he did find evidence for included a tendency for textbooks in soft sciences to rely on more recent work, while the material in textbooks from the hard sciences was more consistent over time. [6] After he published in 1983, it has been suggested that Cole might have missed some relationships in the data because he studied individual measurements, without accounting for the way multiple measurements could trend in the same direction, and because not all the criteria that could indicate a discipline's scientific status were analysed. [22]

In 1984, Cleveland performed a survey of 57 journals and found that natural science journals used many more graphs than journals in mathematics or social science, and that social science journals often presented large amounts of observational data in the absence of graphs. The amount of page area used for graphs ranged from 0% to 31%, and the variation was primarily due to the number of graphs included rather than their sizes. [23] Further analyses by Smith in 2000, [5] based on samples of graphs from journals in seven major scientific disciplines, found that the amount of graph usage correlated "almost perfectly" with hardness (r=0.97). They also suggested that the hierarchy applies to individual fields, and demonstrated the same result using ten subfields of psychology (r=0.93). [5]

In a 2010 article, Fanelli proposed that we expect more positive outcomes in "softer" sciences because there are fewer constraints on researcher bias. They found that among research papers that tested a hypothesis, the frequency of positive results was predicted by the perceived hardness of the field. For example, the social sciences as a whole had a 2.3-fold increased odds of positive results compared to the physical sciences, with the biological sciences in between. They added that this supported the idea that the social sciences and natural sciences differ only in degree, as long as the social sciences follow the scientific approach. [7]

In 2013, Fanelli tested whether the ability of researchers in a field to "achieve consensus and accumulate knowledge" increases with the hardness of the science, and sampled 29,000 papers from 12 disciplines using measurements that indicate the degree of scholarly consensus. Out of the three possibilities (hierarchy, hard/soft distinction, or no ordering), the results supported a hierarchy, with physical sciences performing the best followed by biological sciences and then social sciences. The results also held within disciplines, as well as when mathematics and the humanities were included. [24]

Criticism

Critics of the concept argue that soft sciences are implicitly considered to be less "legitimate" scientific fields, [2] or simply not scientific at all. [25] An editorial in Nature stated that there is an opinion of social science findings being more likely to intersect with everyday experience and may be dismissed as "obvious or insignificant" as a result. [16] Being labelled a soft science can affect the perceived value of a discipline to society and the amount of funding available to it. [3] In the 1980s, mathematician Serge Lang successfully blocked influential political scientist Samuel P. Huntington's admission to the US National Academy of Sciences, describing Huntington's use of mathematics to quantify the relationship between factors such as "social frustration" (Lang asked Huntington if he possessed a "social-frustration meter") as "pseudoscience". [11] [26] [27] During the late 2000s recessions, social science was disproportionately targeted for funding cuts compared to mathematics and natural science. [28] [29] Proposals were made for the United States' National Science Foundation to cease funding disciplines such as political science altogether. [16] [30] Both of these incidents prompted critical discussion of the distinction between hard and soft sciences. [11] [16]

The perception of hard vs soft science is influenced by gender bias with a higher proportion of women in a given field leading to a "soft" perception even within STEM fields. This perception of softness is accompanied by a devaluation of the field's worth. [31]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Comte viewed astronomy as studying the physics of the entire cosmos, calling it "celestial physics". He classified the rest of physics (under the modern definition) as "terrestrial physics", which was therefore less general.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Science</span> Systematic endeavour to gain knowledge

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the world. Modern science is typically divided into two or three major branches: the natural sciences, which study the physical world; and the behavioural sciences, which study individuals and societies. The formal sciences, which study formal systems governed by axioms and rules, are sometimes described as being sciences as well; however, they are often regarded as a separate field because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method or empirical evidence as their main methodology. Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social science</span> Branch of science that studies society and its relationships

Social science is one of the branches of science, devoted to the study of societies and the relationships among individuals within those societies. The term was formerly used to refer to the field of sociology, the original "science of society", established in the 18th century. In addition to sociology, it now encompasses a wide array of academic disciplines, including anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, linguistics, management, communication studies, psychology, culturology and political science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social dynamics</span> Study of behavior of groups

Social dynamics is the study of the behavior of groups and of the interactions of individual group members, aiming to understand the emergence of complex social behaviors among microorganisms, plants and animals, including humans. It is related to sociobiology but also draws from physics and complex system sciences. In the last century, sociodynamics was viewed as part of psychology, as shown in the work: "Sociodynamics: an integrative theorem of power, authority, interfluence and love". In the 1990s, social dynamics began being viewed as a separate scientific discipline[By whom?]. An important paper in this respect is: "The Laws of Sociodynamics". Then, starting in the 2000s, sociodynamics took off as a discipline of its own, many papers were released in the field in this decade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outline of academic disciplines</span> Academic fields of study or professions

An academic discipline or field of study is a branch of knowledge, taught and researched as part of higher education. A scholar's discipline is commonly defined by the university faculties and learned societies to which they belong and the academic journals in which they publish research.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Network theory</span> Study of graphs as a representation of relations between discrete objects

In mathematics, computer science and network science, network theory is a part of graph theory. It defines networks as graphs where the vertices or edges possess attributes. Network theory analyses these networks over the symmetric relations or asymmetric relations between their (discrete) components.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Complex network</span> Network with non-trivial topological features

In the context of network theory, a complex network is a graph (network) with non-trivial topological features—features that do not occur in simple networks such as lattices or random graphs but often occur in networks representing real systems. The study of complex networks is a young and active area of scientific research inspired largely by empirical findings of real-world networks such as computer networks, biological networks, technological networks, brain networks, climate networks and social networks.

Citation impact or citation rate is a measure of how many times an academic journal article or book or author is cited by other articles, books or authors. Citation counts are interpreted as measures of the impact or influence of academic work and have given rise to the field of bibliometrics or scientometrics, specializing in the study of patterns of academic impact through citation analysis. The importance of journals can be measured by the average citation rate, the ratio of number of citations to number articles published within a given time period and in a given index, such as the journal impact factor or the citescore. It is used by academic institutions in decisions about academic tenure, promotion and hiring, and hence also used by authors in deciding which journal to publish in. Citation-like measures are also used in other fields that do ranking, such as Google's PageRank algorithm, software metrics, college and university rankings, and business performance indicators.

The h-index is an author-level metric that measures both the productivity and citation impact of the publications, initially used for an individual scientist or scholar. The h-index correlates with success indicators such as winning the Nobel Prize, being accepted for research fellowships and holding positions at top universities. The index is based on the set of the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications. The index has more recently been applied to the productivity and impact of a scholarly journal as well as a group of scientists, such as a department or university or country. The index was suggested in 2005 by Jorge E. Hirsch, a physicist at UC San Diego, as a tool for determining theoretical physicists' relative quality and is sometimes called the Hirsch index or Hirsch number.

A metatheory or meta-theory is a theory on a subject matter that is a theory in itself. Analyses or descriptions of an existing theory would be considered meta-theories. If the subject matter of a theoretical statement consists of one or multiple theories, it would also be called a meta-theory. For mathematics and mathematical logic, a metatheory is a mathematical theory about another mathematical theory. Meta-theoretical investigations are part of the philosophy of science. The topic of metascience is an attempt to use scientific knowledge to improve the practice of science itself.

The history of the social sciences has origin in the common stock of Western philosophy and shares various precursors, but began most intentionally in the early 18th century with the positivist philosophy of science. Since the mid-20th century, the term "social science" has come to refer more generally, not just to sociology, but to all those disciplines which analyze society and culture; from anthropology to psychology to media studies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The central science</span> Term often associated with chemistry

Chemistry is often called the central science because of its role in connecting the physical sciences, which include chemistry, with the life sciences, pharmaceutical sciences and applied sciences such as medicine and engineering. The nature of this relationship is one of the main topics in the philosophy of chemistry and in scientometrics. The phrase was popularized by its use in a textbook by Theodore L. Brown and H. Eugene LeMay, titled Chemistry: The Central Science, which was first published in 1977, with a fifteenth edition published in 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Branches of science</span>

The branches of science, also referred to as sciences, scientificfields or scientific disciplines, are commonly divided into three major groups:

In sociology of science, the graphism thesis is a proposition of Bruno Latour that graphs are important in science.

Mark Newman is a British physicist and Anatol Rapoport Distinguished University Professor of Physics at the University of Michigan, as well as an external faculty member of the Santa Fe Institute. He is known for his fundamental contributions to the fields of complex systems and complex networks, for which he was awarded the Lagrange Prize in 2014 and the APS Kadanoff Prize in 2024.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Applied mathematics</span> Application of mathematical methods to other fields

Applied mathematics is the application of mathematical methods by different fields such as physics, engineering, medicine, biology, finance, business, computer science, and industry. Thus, applied mathematics is a combination of mathematical science and specialized knowledge. The term "applied mathematics" also describes the professional specialty in which mathematicians work on practical problems by formulating and studying mathematical models.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Friendship paradox</span> Phenomenon that most people have fewer friends than their friends have, on average

The friendship paradox is the phenomenon first observed by the sociologist Scott L. Feld in 1991 that on average, an individual's friends have more friends than that individual. It can be explained as a form of sampling bias in which people with more friends are more likely to be in one's own friend group. In other words, one is less likely to be friends with someone who has very few friends. In contradiction to this, most people believe that they have more friends than their friends have.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social network</span> Social structure made up of a set of social actors

A social network is a social structure made up of a set of social actors, sets of dyadic ties, and other social interactions between actors. The social network perspective provides a set of methods for analyzing the structure of whole social entities as well as a variety of theories explaining the patterns observed in these structures. The study of these structures uses social network analysis to identify local and global patterns, locate influential entities, and examine network dynamics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Replication crisis</span> Observed inability to reproduce scientific studies

The replication crisis is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method, such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially call into question substantial parts of scientific knowledge.

Laurence D. Smith is an American psychologist, historian of psychology, philosopher of science, and emeritus professor at the University of Maine. He was trained in history and philosophy of science at Indiana University and history of psychology at the University of New Hampshire.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hierarchy of the sciences</span>

The hierarchy of the sciences is a theory formulated by Auguste Comte in the 19th century. This theory states that science develops over time beginning with the simplest and most general scientific discipline, astronomy, which is the first to reach the "positive stage". As one moves up the "hierarchy", this theory further states that sciences become more complex and less general, and that they will reach the positive stage later. Disciplines further up the hierarchy are said to depend more on the developments of their predecessors; the highest discipline on the hierarchy are the social sciences. According to this theory, there are higher levels of consensus and faster rates of advancement in physics and other natural sciences than there are in the social sciences.

References

  1. 1 2 "In praise of soft science". Nature. 435 (7045): 1003–2005. 2005. doi: 10.1038/4351003a . PMID   15973363.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Wilson, Timothy D. (12 July 2012). "'Soft' sciences don't deserve the snobbery". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  3. 1 2 3 Frost, Pamela. "Soft science and hard news". Columbia University . Metanews . Retrieved 10 August 2009.
  4. ↑ Helmenstine, Anne Marie (29 November 2019). "What Is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Science?". ThoughtCo.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Smith LD, Best LA, Stubbs A, Johnston J, Archibald AB (2000). "Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences". Social Studies of Science. 30 (1): 73–94. doi:10.1177/030631200030001003. S2CID   145685575.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Cole, Stephen (1983). "The Hierarchy of the Sciences?". American Journal of Sociology. 89 (1): 111–139. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.1033.9702 . doi:10.1086/227835. JSTOR   2779049. S2CID   144920176.
  7. 1 2 Fanelli D (2010). ""Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences". PLOS ONE. 5 (4): e10068. Bibcode:2010PLoSO...510068F. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010068 . PMC   2850928 . PMID   20383332.
  8. ↑ Lemons, John (1996). Scientific Uncertainty and Environmental Problem Solving. Blackwell. p. 99. ISBN   978-0865424760.
  9. ↑ Rose, Steven (1997). "Chapter One". Lifelines: Biology Beyond Determinism . Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780195120356.
  10. ↑ Gutting, Gary (17 May 2012). "How Reliable Are the Social Sciences?". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  11. 1 2 3 Diamond, Jared (August 1987). "Soft sciences are often harder than hard sciences". Discover. Archived from the original on 13 December 2012. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  12. ↑ Hedges, Larry (1 May 1987). "How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science? The empirical cumulativeness of research". American Psychologist. 42 (5): 443–455. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.408.2317 . doi:10.1037/0003-066X.42.5.443.
  13. ↑ Lodahl, Janice Beyer; Gordon, Gerald (1972). "The Structure of Scientific Fields and the Functioning of University Graduate Departments". American Sociological Review. 37 (1): 57–72. doi:10.2307/2093493. JSTOR   2093493.
  14. ↑ Latour, B. (1990). "Drawing things together". In M. Lynch; S. Woolgar (eds.). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 19–68.
  15. ↑ Bentley, R. A. (2008). Allen, Colin (ed.). "Random Drift versus Selection in Academic Vocabulary: An Evolutionary Analysis of Published Keywords". PLOS ONE. 3 (8): e3057. arXiv: 0807.1182 . Bibcode:2008PLoSO...3.3057B. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003057 . PMC   2518107 . PMID   18728786.
  16. 1 2 3 4 "A different agenda". Nature. 487 (7407): 271. 2012. Bibcode:2012Natur.487Q.271.. doi: 10.1038/487271a . PMID   22810654.
  17. ↑ Winkworth, Thos. (29 October 1858). "Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol. 6, no. 310]". The Journal of the Society of Arts. 6 (310): 697–706. JSTOR   41323682.
  18. ↑ "hard, adj. and n.". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. June 2015. Retrieved 10 August 2018.
  19. ↑ Platt, J. R. (16 October 1964). "Strong Inference: Certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others". Science. 146 (3642): 347–353. doi:10.1126/science.146.3642.347. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   17739513.
  20. ↑ VanLandingham, Mark (2014). "On the Hard and Soft Sciences in Public Health". Public Health Reports. 129 (2): 124–126. doi:10.1177/003335491412900204. ISSN   0033-3549. PMC   3904890 . PMID   24587545.
  21. ↑ Storer, N. W. (1967). "The hard sciences and the soft: some sociological observations". Bull Med Libr Assoc. 55 (1): 75–84. PMC   198502 . PMID   6016373.
  22. ↑ Simonton DK (2004). "Psychology's Status as a Scientific Discipline: Its Empirical Placement Within an Implicit Hierarchy of the Sciences". Review of General Psychology. 8 (1): 59–67. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.59. S2CID   145134072.
  23. ↑ Cleveland WS (1984). "Graphs in Scientific Publications". The American Statistician. 38 (4): 261–269. doi:10.2307/2683400. JSTOR   2683400.
  24. ↑ Fanelli D, Glänzel W (2013). "Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences". PLOS ONE. 8 (6): e66938. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...866938F. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066938 . PMC   3694152 . PMID   23840557.
  25. ↑ Berezow, Alex B. (13 July 2012). "Why psychology isn't science". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  26. ↑ Johnson, George; Laura Mansnerus (3 May 1987). "Science Academy Rejects Harvard Political Scientist". The New York Times . Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  27. ↑ Change, Kenneth; Warren Leary (25 September 2005). "Serge Lang, 78, a Gadfly and Mathematical Theorist, Dies". The New York Times . Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  28. ↑ Richardson, Hannah (26 October 2010). "Humanities to lose English universities teaching grant". BBC News. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  29. ↑ Jump, Paul (20 January 2011). "Social science emulates scientific method to escape retrenchment". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  30. ↑ Lane, Charles (4 June 2012). "Congress should cut funding for political science research". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 29 October 2013. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  31. ↑ Light, Alysson. "More women in a STEM field leads people to label it as a 'soft science,' according to new research". theconversation.com. The Conversation. Retrieved 25 January 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.