Michael thoughtfully said:
> separation of hard and soft sciences is another
> rhetorical wedge used to divide the houses of knowledge to serve the
> purposes of the ignorant...
> My own distain for many in
> the soft sciences has to do with how easily many of their practitioners
> are swayed to the 'dark side', and not with the sciences themselves.
It is not the sciences that are soft, it is the people in them.
Psychology is a science, period. But most people in psychology departments see science as an intrinsically misogynistic arm of capitalism which must constantly be guarded against lest it get "out of control" - imagine - too much science: how terrible.
Hence student essays which begin "x (intelligence, personality ... ) cannot be universally defined, ever." And conclude that the writer is therefore going to continue believing whatever he/she likes in this area: be it Freud or EMDR.
Of course physics and biology are every bit as "soft". Just see how soft people make it when it gets in the way of their religion (hubble and the big bang theories), mystical persuasion (quantum mechanics), or political beliefs (nuclear power, green house gases).