Hard on Soft Science: Difference between revisions

Line 8:

This happens outside of science fiction as well. Often, scientist characters in non-[[Science Fiction]] shows will disrespect the softer sciences when they have to deal with them. In real life, [[Acceptable Targets|common targets]] are Psychology (see below), Psychiatry (often portrayed as the medical equivalent of the [[Church of Happyology]]), Economics ("The Dismal Science"), and certain aspects of Linguistics. Some can have a grudging respect for economics and political science, the two that tell if they will get any money for rockets and particle accelerators, but psychology, sociology and the like are [[Acceptable Targets]].

Think of it as an interdisciplinary [[Take That]]. How much the rivalry is [[Serious Business]], and how much friendly banter, depends on the people involved. It's still an influential conflict that not only has spawned new theories and schools, but became a full blown [~~http://en.~~wikipedia~~.org/wiki/Science_wars~~ "war"] during the 90's. The standard comeback from soft scientists is that their subject is more "applicable" or more relevant to life and society at large (e.g.: as hit and miss as psychology can be, we're a long way from seeing a neurological or even pharmacological solution to mood disorders). Another reason why science fiction writers love to return the favor by taking potshots at people in the humanities is because literary critics usually [[Sci Fi Ghetto|don't take science fiction seriously]].

Think of it as an interdisciplinary [[Take That]]. How much the rivalry is [[Serious Business]], and how much friendly banter, depends on the people involved. It's still an influential conflict that not only has spawned new theories and schools, but became a full blown [[wikipedia:Science wars|"war"]] during the 90's. The standard comeback from soft scientists is that their subject is more "applicable" or more relevant to life and society at large (e.g.: as hit and miss as psychology can be, we're a long way from seeing a neurological or even pharmacological solution to mood disorders). Another reason why science fiction writers love to return the favor by taking potshots at people in the humanities is because literary critics usually [[Sci Fi Ghetto|don't take science fiction seriously]].

A related phenomenon is "hard science" and business students criticizing subjects like Literary Criticism and Philosophy for being more [[Wild Mass Guessing]] and having little utility in careers outside the academic world. This overlooks actual, legitimate philosophies that adults can also make use of (like for example, studying logic and reasoning), and of course, how in [[Real Life]] businesses prefer candidates who bring different perspectives and ways of thinking to their jobs.

Also see [[All Psychology Is Freudian]], which also contributes to how psychology became such a target - psychoanalysis is ''blatantly'' unscientific navel-gazing, but because it was one of psychology's most [[Vocal Minority|vocal minorities]], the "psychologists sitting in couches charging 200 bucks to talk about your mom" stereotype became a [[Never Live It Down]]. Modern types of psychology, such as behaviourism, cognitive science and neuroscience, are a lot harder yet just as practical. In this case, calling Freudians quacks would work, but Skinner's experiments have been repeatedly verified. However, the history of scams, the possible lack of ethics - see [~~http://en.~~wikipedia~~.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment~~ these] [~~http://en.~~wikipedia~~.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment~~ experiments], the [[Bedlam House]], and [[A Clockwork Orange (Literature)|behaviourism's possibility of abuse]] - and "pop psychology" in general still haven't liberated it from being an acceptable target.

Also see [[All Psychology Is Freudian]], which also contributes to how psychology became such a target - psychoanalysis is ''blatantly'' unscientific navel-gazing, but because it was one of psychology's most [[Vocal Minority|vocal minorities]], the "psychologists sitting in couches charging 200 bucks to talk about your mom" stereotype became a [[Never Live It Down]]. Modern types of psychology, such as behaviourism, cognitive science and neuroscience, are a lot harder yet just as practical. In this case, calling Freudians quacks would work, but Skinner's experiments have been repeatedly verified. However, the history of scams, the possible lack of ethics - see [[wikipedia:Milgram experiment|these]] [[wikipedia:Stanford prison experiment|experiments]], the [[Bedlam House]], and [[A Clockwork Orange (Literature)|behaviourism's possibility of abuse]] - and "pop psychology" in general still haven't liberated it from being an acceptable target.

Can invoke a [[Romanticism Versus Enlightenment]]-like conflict (in this case, the hard sciences form the Enlightenment). For anti-intellectualism by non-intellectuals, see [[Science Is Bad]] and [[Science Is Wrong]]. See [[MD Envy]] and [[Not That Kind of Doctor]], which can be related.

Line 84:

== [[Real Life]] ==

* The [~~http://en.~~wikipedia~~.org/wiki/Sokal_affair~~ Sokal hoax] was a [[Take That]] from a physics professor to postmodernist social studies academics. Sokal sent a paper of pure drivel which would embarrass a second year physics students, but wrote it so it agreed with the political and social views of the journal Social Text. Sokal's paper (in brief - the real paper contains more nonsense than can be discussed here) argued that a properly free mathematics would free us from the social constructs which are implied by our rigid, unyielding, dogmatic, anti-feminist, capitalist, and unjust theory of ''gravity''. Of course, they ''did'' publish it of their own free will...

* The [[wikipedia:Sokal affair|Sokal hoax]] was a [[Take That]] from a physics professor to postmodernist social studies academics. Sokal sent a paper of pure drivel which would embarrass a second year physics students, but wrote it so it agreed with the political and social views of the journal Social Text. Sokal's paper (in brief - the real paper contains more nonsense than can be discussed here) argued that a properly free mathematics would free us from the social constructs which are implied by our rigid, unyielding, dogmatic, anti-feminist, capitalist, and unjust theory of ''gravity''. Of course, they ''did'' publish it of their own free will...

* Real scientists engage in this to varying degrees, though mostly it tends to be light natured ribbing between colleagues. Especially given that actually annoying the other fields means they won't be able to ask that department for help when something comes up in their work that they can't answer on their own.

** Played very straight by the same scientists, physicians, and skeptics towards a great deal of New Age beliefs, which the scientifically-minded do not consider legitimate fields at all. To draw the distinction: a historian or a philosopher does not necessarily follow the scientific method at all, but they are still held to very rigorous scrutiny by their peers and academic honesty is demanded of them. Most scientists respect such academics and it's all well-meaning ribbing between colleagues. An astrologer, however, cannot and does not seek peer review, academic appraisal, or to test their beliefs against evidence in a controlled experiment. Whatever one's personal beliefs, the reason so many scientists are active in the skeptical movement is obvious.

Line 90:

[[Category:Insult Tropes]]

[[Category:Hard On Soft Science]]

[[Category:Hard on Soft Science]]

[[Category:Pages with comment tags]]