moreno Wrote:Hard/Soft science (s) are colloquial terms used when comparing fields of scientific and/or academic research/scholarship. Hard sciences i.e. physics, chemistry, human biology, natural and physical sciences are viewed as being more rigorous or accurate in study. Social sciences and other similar disciplines (psychology, evolutionary biology, sociology, anthropology) are perceived as soft.
Familiar with the usage of the term rocket science?
I have of course heard the terms bandied by those that don't understand.
The so-called 'hard' sciences are by no means so. It is an illusion created by the media i.e. hard science = fact. Therefore anything that cannot prove facts is not a 'hard' science.
The truth of the matter (from a theoretical physics point of view) is that there are no facts. Only theories that, based on current evidence, seem to hold (for now).
The problem with archaeologists is many don't have a strong grounding in science (many are even scared of it!), and feel that they aren't up to being scientific and that they should define themselves in other terms.
The joke is, of course, by denying the scientific method, conclusions no longer are based on the totality of the evidence. Conclusions become stories with as much validity as 'purple dragons put it there'.
I do not deny that differing fields of study employ different sets of data, each with its own measurement techniques each with inherent errors. Its an understanding of these errors that make any interpretation valid or not.
Anything else is self-delusion.
You may get lucky by following a 'feeling' or hunch or constructing a story based on data selected to fit your own preconceptions/ frame of reference. But more often than not you will eventually fail.
Going 'beyond the evidence' to create an engaging story may seem valid in this world of shiny lights and flashing images, but it is a path doomed to fail.
But conversely, accurate, evidence-based conclusions don't have to be cold or boring. Its just more hard work.