39,327
edits
(→[[Real Life]]: clean up) |
m (categories and general cleanup) |
||
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 [
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 [
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 [
* 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:
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Insult Tropes]]
[[Category:Hard
[[Category:Pages with comment tags]]
|