hard science

Hard science is a term which often is used to describe certain fields of the natural sciences, usually physics, chemistry, and many fields of biology. In this model, the hard sciences are said to rely on experimental, quantifiable data or the scientific method and focus on accuracy and objectivity. The hard sciences are often contrasted with the 'soft sciences' and social sciences, which are by contrast implied to have less rigor. The hard vs. soft distinction is one of many possible distinctions between sciences that have developed in the last 200 years. In some ways the term 'hard' science corresponds to the nomothetic science described by Wilhelm Windelband and the Naturwissenschaften (natural sciences) described by Wilhelm Dilthey. The 'hard' versus 'soft' distinction is particularly charged, however, in that the opposition generally values hard sciences while devaluing soft sciences. Thus the conclusions of hard science are seen to represent objective features of reality determined through concrete experiment (and sometimes thought experiments) by experimentalists with a rigorous training in specialized research methodology as interpreted by theoreticians who use their results. The soft sciences, in contrast, are seen to lack the focus of the hard sciences and are thus a lesser, or less fully realized, version of 'true' science such as the hard sciences. Psychoanalysis as practiced by Sigmund Freud, for example, was considered to be a "soft" science: it did not produce quantifiable results and the observation of data was left much to the individual interpretation of the investigator. Because of this lack of strict empirical data, theories in psychology were not considered to be as testable as those in physics. The advent of Behaviorism in the 1920s was in part an attempt to get around this stigma and to make psychology as "hard" as any other "hard science" by the means of banishing any non-quantifiable terms and concepts under the assumption that the internal life cannot be measured "objectively". The 'hard' vs. 'soft' distinction is not uncontroversial. Although associated with notions of realism, this distinction is drawn more from commonsense than a deep immersion in the philosophy of science. Much work by modern historians of science, starting with the work done by Thomas Kuhn, has focused on the ways in which the "hard sciences" have functioned in ways which were less "hard" than previously assumed, emphasizing that decisions over the veracity of a given theory owed much more to "subjective" influences than the "hard" label would emphasize (and begin to question whether there are any real distinctions between "hard" and "soft" science). Some, such as those who subscribe to the "strong program" of the sociology of scientific knowledge, would go even further, and remove the barrier between "hard science" and "nonscience" completely. This take on science has, needless to say, not been taken too fondly by scientists themselves. Despite these objections, the 'hard' vs 'soft' distinction is popular and widely used amongst scientists, technicians, and academics because of the way that it captures a perceived distinction between different forms of scientific practice in the modern research universities and laboratories.

Hard Science

See also