spoiler

Personally? No, absolutely not. There should be no differentiating between what can be measured, and what cannot.

I can’t help but look at the reproducibility issue in “Psychology” and notice, what did they do about it? Nothing. It just exists. It’s not real science.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    The study of human behavior is more difficult to measure, but can absolutely be held to scientific rigor. In fact, all branches of science have some degree of overlap and interconnection, and thus have blurrier lines than you might expect.

  • disregardable@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 days ago

    If you refuse to consider anything other than randomized control trials science, then you believe we don’t have proof that smoking causes cancer.

  • corvus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    There are lots of scientific groups that work in the so called soft sciences that apply the usual methods of the hard sciences. It’s not about soft or hard, it’s about good or bad.

          • FoundFootFootage78@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Can it? Can’t exactly do double-blind case controlled studies.

            More importantly though, economics is rarely studied scientifically. If nothing else, allowing the existing economists of the world to call themselves scientists is not deserved. Until economics is approached with the academic rigour of history and sociology it shouldn’t really be called a science.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              Economics still can be analyzed scientifically and from a materialist perspective. For example, Marxist economics.

  • FriendBesto@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    No.

    Unless it can be imperically proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to remove human bias, say, like politics, et al. Otherwise it is glorified opinion. A lot of soft science is so-called science by committee.

    Hard science already has an existing problem of soft science think-creep as it is.