/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9097874
talk to karl and dick gregory

>>9097874
if they were real science they wouldn't be called soft science

find some soft science publications that use the scientific method then come back

>>9097874
I don't believe, I know

>>9097874
Misnomers DO exist unfortunately, jelly fish aren't fish, soft sciences aren't science, even computer science isn't science either.

i dont think the soft sciences aren't science, i think they're sciences that haven't yet found a core theoretical framework for the entire field's research.

psychology, for example, is full of the scientific equivalent of stabs in the dark

>>9097874
No, soft science is simply the name given to sciences who do not use modern mathematics in their research. For example, physics is a hard science because it uses even fresh out of the oven math. Chemistry is not far behind. I've heard a bit has been done to improve biology's standards but it is still too far to call a hard science. Bio grads only need calculus 1 and the study of inter universal Tai metric spaces (the study of spaces on which Tai's method is valid. As in, a metric space in which every Tai sequence converges)

Then comes psychology. I kid you not, the most advanced math they use is distribution-based probability. That shit is 300 years old. You know what this means? That none of those fucks have put even the slightest effort in trying to create mathematical models for their research. They rely on their flawed intuition. Now, that shit is soft as fuck.

>>9097901
>Tai sequence

>>9097904
Tai sequences are also known as finite sequences of rectangles. I forgot to mention it but all tai sequences converge as they are finite, ergo every space that admits a metric is a tai space.

Interuniversal Tai Spaces, also known as high school arithmetic. They study it for their PhD I think.

>>9097901
>No, soft science is simply the name given to sciences who do not use modern mathematics in their research
Graph theory is used often in sociology.

Both the soft and hard sciences follow the scientific method (posing a hypothesis, collecting data, drawing a conclusion).
I think the real distinction between the hard and soft sciences is the fact there's no bedrock of knowledge in the social sciences. To use psychology as an example, there's no core idea that ALL psychologists draw on to derive other ideas. Whereas in physics and chemistry, there is a foundation of knowledge that nobody will disagree with (there are no chemists against the periodic table and no physicists against Newton's law of gravity).

>>9097901
what about this?

http://sci-hub.cc/10.1162/neco_a_00999

>>9097911
>Graph theory is used often in sociology.

Kek you mean that thing we teach to olympiad kids? If kids with no formal background in math can understand it then it isn't modern math faggot.

>>9097911
>>9097911
>Graph theory
He said modern mathematics, not 300 year old mathematics.

>>9097901
kek

>>9097929
>look at these outliers! Means it's not difficult for the majority!
Perhaps lots of modern math is not useful for what they want to do. Considered that possibility genius?

>>9097874
Do some of you NOT believe that?

>>9097874
The fuck is a "hard" or "soft" science? Sounds like you classified sciences by how it makes your dick feel

>>9097944
>outliers
Olympiad kids are kids. They are not outliers in the general math community, they are only outliers in their age group. You could learn all they know if you studied as much as them. It wouldn't even be and hard, they have very low mathematical maturity and understanding of formalism. For example, they get taught graph theory but not group theory and topology which are central in graph theory. They learn probability but not measure theory, which is central. They have a very surface level knowledge of math which you could also have if you stopped being a faggot.

>Perhaps lots of modern math is not useful for what they want to do. Considered that possibility genius?

Well, we research whatever we want. Historically physicists have been the ones who proposed a lot of good shit in math which led to the development of math they cared about because they showed us a cool problem, we liked it and then we solved it.

I remember that the first person to describe a mathematical model for gene transfer or some shit in biology was a mathematician who was presented with a problem by his biologist friend and he solved it on the spot. The model he deduced to this day has his name.

All you need to do is propose good problems to us and we will solve them. If you do not propose problems to us then we will keep studying interuniversal bullshit homological category configurator topological non differentiable chaotic non-eliptical modular manifolds theory.

>>9097901

>Tai spaces

My fucking sides anon

>>9097985
Your autism is showing. You're assuming humans can be fit into tight models in the same way inanimate matter can.

>>9097929
>>9097939
Network theory, dynamical systems, Bayesian analysis, are all used in sociology(although it's really ecologists doing the work) ecology uses partial differential equations but I haven't seen it applied to social systems.

>>9097901
What am I even reading

>>9098091
Yeah but typically those things all take a back seat to critical privilege analysis theory and other trash

I'd respect sociology much more if the things you listed were the typical methods used in sociology studies

>>9097911
>no physicists against Newton's law of gravity

>>9099514
They're not against it, it's still useful for many reasons as it's still correct to a certain scale and in certain situations.

>>9097905
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you talking about Reimann sums?

>>9097874
Physics>Chemistry>Biology>Social Sciences.
>Social Sciences
Filled with Low IQ Brainlets. Fail to predict. Imprecise. Don't replicate. Often Wrong. Politically Biased. Depending on ideologies. Contradictory. Disagreement between specialists. Rival schools of thought. There is no absolute truth. Truth swings according to " muh feelings ". Avoid math.
>Physics
Filled with high IQ genius. Predict with great precision. Replicate. Often Right. Not politically biased. Regardless of Ideologies. Logically consistent. Universal Agreement between specialists. Unified theory. There is a set of absolute & universal laws of universe. Which don't change regardless of "muh feelings". Written in Math..

>>9097874
>soft sciences are not real science
They're lacking in rigour, and do not focus enough on reproducibility and prediction.

>only for people who couldn't hack the hard sciences
I'm sure there are people who have enough ability doing work in the field, but they're uncommon or aren't really applying their talents.

Daily reminder that reproducibility is a cornerstone of science.

http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

>>9097901

>reality can be modeled mathematically

fuck off materialist

It is is nearly impossible to isolate and control a single variable in a soft science experiment. It is very easy to do in a hard science experiment because of the mathematical rigor that the soft science experiment lacked. Soft science is what we should call pseudo-science. What we now call pseudo-science should be called non-science. Except when they say my research is pseudo-science. Then they should die.

>>9099571
It's correct for engineercucks.

>>9099631
>Physics
>Not politically biased
Please. Physics is filled with cis white male scum who do nothing but oppress gender fluid black women with their papers. Fuck you, you disgusting biggot.

>>9099663

To clarify my >>9099631 post..
Physics is not /pol/itically biased (for neither left of right) because the laws of physics are the same for everyone regardless of /pol/itical ideology or muh feelings.
>Really?
Many Physicists are Jews, not neonazi.
Physicists tends to be more /pol/itically neutral. Neither Right it Left.
Jewish Physicists as Albert Einstein for Example worked for USA against both Far Right Nazi Germany & Far Left Soviet Union.
> !?
Laws of Physics are /pol/itical neutral in essence. But Social sciences love to turn everything into /pol/itical discussion.

>>9099678
Check your privilege.

>>9097874
A lot my friend goes to humanities because hate math, basic Algebra from high school, another friend drop out college because calculus.

Sad part is a lot PhD in social science don't know basic statistic.

>>9097874
>Do some of you really believe
This is how women ask questions. Check yoself

>>9099693
Befo' you rek yoself

>>9099693
T.autist that hates women because he can't get one

>>9099777
t. roastie

Yeah, yeah. Please remember that reddit is the 4chan for roasties and faggots so please go back.

>>9099803
I'm a man. I think you're a pathetic loser that can't fulfil the most elementary and objective action a human being is supposed to do.

You'll be lonely in bed tonight (again), while I'll be sleeping with my wife.

Kys.

>>9097901
>physics is a hard science because it uses even fresh out of the oven math.
Implying mathematicians care about doing things which could be useful to physics. If you want applicable math, you have to do it yourself.

>>9099834
Damn, let me send this to Villani. He will be surprised to know he doesn't exist.

It may not be science. But it is still a body of knowledge. And therefor, it has a meaning and a purpose.

So tell me, OP. What is relevant about the distinction of science being hard or soft?