Re: brief survey
| From: | Tristan Mc Leay <conlang@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, September 13, 2005, 23:34 |
|---|
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 00:55 +0200, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> You can say _naturvetenskapsman_ "natural scientist", but that's strictly
> someone working with the physical sciences - a distinction of subject matter,
> not methodology or "objectivity" (for lack of a better word).
But can you find a better distinction between the hard and soft sciences
than the content matter? (or, perhaps, whether they present their data
as graphs or tables). Psychology, for instance, is generally considered
a "soft science", but many psychologists use a quite hard-scientific
methodology and I presume are "objective", but in the context of science
I'm not completely sure what you mean by it. (To the extent that there
are some who don't use hard-scientific methodologies, that should not
taint other subfields and other researchers, unless, of course, the
criterion is by public declaration: Which is fair enough, but then "hard
science" is a soft science, and it's no surprise that you can't get a
perfect translation into Swedish of the concept.)
--
Tristan.
Reply