In a message dated 5/23/99 10:44:55 PM PST, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > The difference between hard and soft sciences> > root laws of the universe.
> > is far more a matter of a spectrum of increasing abstraction from the
it seems to me that the differences, while quite present, are merely matters of degree; degree of uncertainty, to be more specific.
lets say your gonna do a sociology experment: you do a survey. the uncertanity involved stems from, at the very least, the possiblity that the ppl you survey might be lying to you, and that there could always be a different explanation then the one you thought of that might better fit the data.
now lets say your gonna do a physics experment: you take some measurements. the uncertainty involved stems from, at the very least, the possibility that the insturments your using might be malfunctioning, and that there could always be a different explanation then the one you thought of that might better fit the data.
their both uncertain, of course... but its a lot easier to figure out if an insturment is malfunctioning then it is to figure out if a person is lying to you about the way they feel... so at root, are not both experments at least somewhat axiomatic?
also: ive heard it said that hard sciences study 'objects', while soft sciences study the 'interactions' of those objects... but a reason i disagree with that is that the distenction between the 'interaction' and the 'thing itself' get really really blurry sometimes... not to mention that even once u finally label things, its often impossible to study the 'thing' without studying the 'interactions', and vice versa... and arnt all 'interactions' 'things', in some sense?
no, im not confused. i honestly know what im talkin about here ::coughcough:: ahem... =)
"so what did you do to celebrate 5/23? all ive gotta say is LONG LIVE THE GREAT LATE-NIGHT SUBURBAN BANG!!!"
contemplating a certain smoldering crater, sayke