How are soft sciences viewed by hard science people

[Anonymous No.12230452]

How are soft sciences especially those often seen as far left like psychology, sociology, and anthropology seen by people in the hard sciences.

[Anonymous No.12230516]

>>12230452
Hard scientist in academia here. I think soft sciences are interesting, I'll read about them often.

[Anonymous No.12230525]

>>12230516
Have you ever noticed any antagonism between hard and soft academics.

[Anonymous No.12230528]

>>12230452
Psychology and Anthropology are based.
Sociology is cringe.

[Anonymous No.12230540]

>>12230528
Why Sociology in particular

[Anonymous No.12230567]

>>12230452
I think economics is best among them, because at least econ tries to implant scientific method by using math and stat.

The other any 'social science' things are cringe as fuck. They are just brainwashing tools by SJWs and Leftoids who don't even know single-variable calculus.

I don't claim that only hard science is worth, but using it as rhetoric by Mr. 'I fucking love science' guys to promote their stupid ideology is so annoying.

[Anonymous No.12230574]

>>12230452
Academia is all left.

[Anonymous No.12230576]

>>12230452
I like proper soft science, but usually its corrupted by the usual suspects

[Anonymous No.12230583]

>>12230452
Soft science is largely uninteresting. Prior to being corrupted by ideologues it was probably fascinating. In any case, it has been overwhelmingly worthless for as long as I've been in academia.

[Anonymous No.12230590]

>>12230574
Yes but as I understand it Academia in the hard sciences are usually more center and believe in things like higher taxation, universal healthcare and the such. Where as those in soft science are more likely to believe in things like communism, socialism, anarchism. And support more radical ideas like reparations, abolition of private property, the more extreme forms of feminism and banning hate speech.

[Anonymous No.12230596]

>>12230574
>>12230590
It's difficult to dispute that academia is vastly leftwing. The extreme minority who are rightwing tend to lurk in the shadows to avoid being ostracized. As a result, academia is functionally 99.99% leftwing.

[Anonymous No.12230614]

>>12230596
Yes but aren't the ones in the soft sciences even further left then the left of the other academics except those in things like literature

[Anonymous No.12230626]

>>12230614
Absolutely. Anybody who is right of centre in the soft sciences gets filtered out well before they gain stature within the academic hierarchy. As a consequence of no descending opinions, it continues leaning more and more left overtime. It's a positive feedback loop.

This is why regardless of your personal political beliefs, it is crucial to have people who have individuals with some alternative beliefs.

[Anonymous No.12230643]

>>12230626
Do you see any value in work done by those in the soft sciences.
Do you think they intentionally manipulate data or more subtle stuff like run experiments more often when they get results they don't like or when giving advise on politics interpret data in ways that support their personal positions

[Anonymous No.12230656]

>>12230643
I believe that is true, but I don't have any evidence that supports it (I haven't searched either, perhaps it's available.) What is certain, is that there is a lack of rigidity or integrity in their methodology. Some topics are off-limits, and in others you mustn't steer away from the mainstream narrative (eg. IQ research).

If you want to listen to a fascinating episode of the JRE, I suggest listening to episode #1191. It features James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian. It illustrates in an entertaining fashion why soft sciences are beyond redemption.

[Anonymous No.12230689]

>>12230656
Thanks for the suggestion I'll give it a look.

[Anonymous No.12230809]

>>12230528
Psych academic reporting in. Anthropology is categorically unbased - it’s barely fucking better than sociology.
I’d argue that most sub disciplines in psychology are shit too

[Anonymous No.12231409]

>>12230809
Agreed. Anybody with vigour in psychology departments transitioned to behavioural neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.12231422]

>>12230452
depends on the science,
economics, sociology and the clinical wing of psy are pretty questionable

[Anonymous No.12231451]

>>12230596
Utter nonsense. Academia exists to 'educate' the sons and daughters of the ruling class on the latest apologetics for capitalism and the latest idpol divide and conquer tactics to be applied to the commoners.

[Anonymous No.12231552]

>>12231451
Stating your nonsense with conviction doesn't mask the fact you have no idea what you're talking about. Please try and refute, in an articulate manner why/how my statement is "utter nonsense".

[Anonymous No.12232002]

>>12230452
ok I'll try to give my point of view as a chemist
>psychology
there's some actual science in it, 80% is a meme tho
>anthropology
the only based and scientific part is biologic anthropology and the parts of cultural antropology tied to linguistic studies or archaeology
>sociology
literal meme field for trannies and communists

[Anonymous No.12232006]

>>12230574
not in STEM, leftists are too dumb for these fields

[Anonymous No.12232045]

>>12230656
>>12230643
>>12230626
>I believe that is true, but I don't have any evidence that supports it (I haven't searched either, perhaps it's available.)
morons

[Anonymous No.12232047]

>>12230452
>cultural and linguistic anthropology
hilariously cringe
>archaeology and biological
unfortunate to be in the same department

[Anonymous No.12232052]

>>12232006
No, the opposite. STEM is overwhelmingly leftist.

[Anonymous No.12232056]

>>12230583
You think soft sciences were objective when they thought that blacks were inhuman chimps?

[Anonymous No.12232057]

>>12232052
>STEM is overwhelmingly leftist.
lmao where?
Not in Europe

[Anonymous No.12232061]

>>12232052
https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/2246

[Anonymous No.12232064]

>>12232057
>thinking europoor scientists are religious capital loving conservatives

[Anonymous No.12232069]

>>12232064
>thinking not being a leftist automatically makes you religious and conservative

[Anonymous No.12232070]

>>12230452
Unreliable. Has/had massive potential, then got flooded by 105iq future baristas.
Any real work is delegated to aging fossils and conmen

[Anonymous No.12232071]

>>12232061
Nobody is talking about STEM workers, retard.

[Anonymous No.12232076]

>>12232061
>STEM workers were significantly more conservative than other workers
correct

[Anonymous No.12232079]

>>12232071
>Nobody is talking about STEM workers
wtf are you talking about then? You hypothesize that STEM students differ from graduated STEM workers politically?
I say bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12232086]

>>12230567
Economics is pure pseudoscience. Pull your head out.

>at least econ tries to implant scientific method by using math and stat
Lmao. It's about as scientific as astrology.

[Anonymous No.12232088]

>>12232069
Why would scientists vote for a party that is known for denying basic scientific facts?

[Anonymous No.12232092]

>>12232079
The subject is academia, fuckwit. Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.12232104]

>>12230452
If they put the same effort into their work as they do into hiding their error margins they might actually do something useful.

[Anonymous No.12232131]

>>12232088
Which party doesn't do this? Are you suggesting scientists never vote?

[Anonymous No.12232236]

>>12232045
This is the most brainless interpretation I think I have ever seen on this board.
>Person says they're unsure rather than brazenly making claim w/o support
>Retarded bystander points and laugh at anon's uncertainty
Please go hangout on Reddit

[Anonymous No.12232243]

>>12232056
>Evidence based rather than unfalsifiable theory based
Yes.

[Anonymous No.12232569]

>>12230452
with sympathy and suspicion

[Anonymous No.12232571]

>>12230452
>How are soft sciences viewed by hard science people
inaccurately

[Anonymous No.12233634]

>>12232092
there is basically no difference between STEM academics and STEM workers.

[Anonymous No.12233641]

>>12233634
politically

[Anonymous No.12233837]

>>12230452
As a topic for self-study, the (true) soft sciences are fascinating; sometimes they’re even more interesting than the hard sciences. However, as an academic topic, anything past an introductory level course is rife with bias and political opinion, which I assume is why no one takes them seriously anymore.

[Anonymous No.12233867]

>>12232088
There is a whole lot of science denial from leftists. About nuclear, genetics, agriculture, wind and solar power, economics in particular.

[Anonymous No.12233907]

>>12230452
Soft science isn't science, just science envy

[Anonymous No.12234445]

>>12230452
Triple gay. Why would you want a flaccid, soft science when you can instead choose a rock hard science like biology?

[Anonymous No.12234481]

>>12230516
FPBP

I'm sick of pseud undergrads here going all "wah, I'm a HARD scientist".

[Anonymous No.12234487]

>>12231451
WOW you're an idiot

[Anonymous No.12234496]

>>12230452
They're not

[Anonymous No.12234497]

>>12230452
Free estate.

[Anonymous No.12234510]

>>12230528
>Anthropology based
Midwit.

[Anonymous No.12234522]

>>12234481
>Seething smooth brain soft science cuck

[Anonymous No.12234530]

>>12234487
Dilate, libfag.

[Anonymous No.12234537]

>>12230452
>How are soft sciences viewed by hard science people
From above.

[Anonymous No.12234558]

>>12234537
based

[Anonymous No.12234682]

>>12234537
kek based

[Anonymous No.12234706]

>>12234530
You've obviously never been in a university.
They do not push neoliberal or neoconservative ideology. They are almost universally communists and socialists.

[Anonymous No.12234738]

>>12230452
>psychology, sociology, and anthropology
literally not science. the soft sciences are biology and chemistry while the hard sciences are math and physics. soft sciences are soft because they are lot less accurate because there are a lot more variables
as a biochem major i think physics and math provide the necessary tools and solutions to do everything but on their own are less important.

[Anonymous No.12234750]

honestly, most don't seem good at all.
there are some that are exemplary. these include:
>paleoanthropology
>comparative linguistics
>archeology
the reasom they are good, is because they make an honest attempt to stay connected to hard science, and often feature a lot of hard science in their study. middle tier includes shit like
>history
>psychology
this is stuff that could be connected to hard sciences if a scholar honestly tried, but its very possible and much easier to not bother at all, and still see success as a 'researcher'.
low-tier shit:
>sociology
>economics
theoretically, if it tried to take itself seriously, could use science in the same way paleoarch could, e.g. coming at human behavior biologically and game-theoretically, but the foundations of both fields generally do not even bother, and are not expected to.

at the very bottom rung, you have the shit that can probably never have science applied to it, e.g.
>political science
>x studies (women, LGBT, feministic, queer, etc)
because even a basic amount of science tends to evaporate its claims

[Anonymous No.12235028]

>>12232052
not where I live, it's well mixed but the "higher" up the candidate is the more "right" wing, could be due to age though.

[Anonymous No.12235044]

>>12230540
Imagine this
you take a small part of psychology, take that limited understanding make it gospel, strech it as far as it can go and you got a field of study
Half of the god damn time i dont even know what the hell are they working on

[Anonymous No.12235092]

>>12230452
"soft science"
The academic excuse for humanities """people""" to not be thorough in their analysis or research of something.
These are also the saltiest of people because they know their research is not very accurate and when you point that out, they will word smith some bullshit or just flat out call you names.
Just because something is "science-like" does not mean you can call it a science. There should be no definition as a "soft-science" or "hard-science". You're either making predictions, testing something and then explaining it, and then having someone else repeat and call you on your b/s or not.
I do think some "soft-sciences" aren't "soft-sciences" like they are claimed to be.

You can distinguish between fields that use more science and other fields that use less. The fields that use more is because it's usually easier to predict and test ACCURATELY, and perhaps with PRECISION (physics).
Psychology is an area that makes predictions about human thought, where it's not really important to accurately and precisely confirm those predictions, as they tend to use generalised information (population statistics).
They can predict trends and human behavior over large populations semi-accurately, but I wouldn't say that they predict individual behavior well.
This is where for individuals, they use a whole heap feelsy human emotion tactics, and prior experience to work out what someone is thinking. Which the only evidence to say that it works, is that it's been tried a heap of times. Which is not science (but you could say it has elements of a scientific method or procedure).

[Anonymous No.12235105]

>>12230452
Only evo and behavioural psychology are based, sociology and economics are politics trying to larp as science.

[Anonymous No.12235136]

>>12230452
They are enormously speculative and you can see this by how often they change the core assumptions of their text books. As psychology beings to explore the structure of the brain and the chemical/electrical interactions of the entire human body it will get into the realm of hard science.

[Anonymous No.12235236]

>>12233867
Did you confuse leftists with right-wingers?

[Anonymous No.12235255]

>>12235105
moron

[Anonymous No.12235297]

>>12234706
>They are almost universally communists and socialists.
Only in mathematics departments. Everyone else is liberal.

[Anonymous No.12235347]

>>12230452
psychology is semi-okay
sociology is trash
anthropology is okay

[Anonymous No.12235499]

>>12235347
The problem with psychology is human thought is not really quantifiable.
You can measure brain patterns, but it's really hard to assume that the exact pattern applies to every other human.

[Anonymous No.12235512]

>>12230452
>Seen as far left
Actual leftists are materialists, they reject pseudoscience, supersticions, and religion

[Anonymous No.12235522]

>>12230574
Participants of academia are often left wing, true. However the international academic institution is ruled by greedy capitalists, which look to maximize the number of articles published and lock them behind paywalls. This has caused a decadent enviroment, where retarded papers are published constantly and theres no freedom of information

[Anonymous No.12235543]

>>12233867
>About nuclear, genetics, agriculture, wind and solar power.

Are you retarded? The eastern bloc brought great advances in all those fields, even when Lysenkism was on its peak, the accesibility of education and lack of religion allowed great breakthroughs for science, which only improved after Stalin's death.

>Economics
Your liberal art isnt science retard

[Anonymous No.12235545]

>>12231451
Based

[Anonymous No.12235555]

>>12230528
Anthropology is like Freudian sociology. Still though, Anthropology actually studies real societies as opposed to the schizo ramblings of psychologists, what a load of bullshit in that field.

[Anonymous No.12235558]

>>12234706
Are you retarded? Besides the fact that Idpol is a neoliberal spook, you only get leftist profesors in retarded courses, like gender studies