Moses with intangibles and relate to the study

Moses LominyoInternational Relations Mr. Dibler 24/ 1/ 2018The debate of segregating different sciences between “soft” and “real” could be simplified by one of the leading argumentative in sciences. John R. Platt states “Scientists these days tend to keep up a polite fiction that all science is equal. Expect for the work of misguided opponent whose arguments we happen to be refuted at the time, we speak as though every scientist’s field and methods of study are as good as other scientists and perhaps a little better.(Reed.ed) This debate dates back to several hundred years, Auguste Comte was a French philosopher who founded the discipline praxeology and the doctrine of positivism. He argued in the nineteenth century that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard too soft on the basis of factors such as rigor, development, theoretical or applied. Likewise, he arranged the fields starting from physics, Chemistry, biology and the social sciences as being the softest. This debate possesses important issue toward the view of the field and government funding.  Platt and numerous scholars are frustrated by the way that some fields of science appear to make clear and rapid progress, while others keep lurking behind without being able to make relevance advances in the field.”we speak piously of… making small studies that will add another brick to the temple of science” (Reed.ed).Platt stated. “Most such bricks just lie around the Brickyard”. Platt considers Physics, chemistry and molecular biology as “quintessential model of what science out to be”. Although he is correct in pointing out the fact; he wasn’t entirely correct in diagnosing the essence of “science”. Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor exactitude and objectivity. Precise definitions vary however according to the science council science is defined as ” Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. Platt’s critique of soft science provides us with an excellent starting point to explore the idea that science is a heterogeneous category. An argument against soft science begins by implying the fact that some. fields appear to construct new and innovative progress while on the other hand soft science mainly deals with the already known significant facts.  However, if this notion was digested deeply we could simply state the fact physics itself went through a long void of innovation of the field. The issue faced with soft sciences is that it deals with intangibles and relate to the study of human and animal behaviors, interactions, thoughts, and feelings. I would argue that the notation of soft sciences imply and are to be considered to be less “legitimate” fields or by extension not scientific at all. That being said to be perceived in less of value could be detrimental. For instance, in the 1980s, mathematician Serge Lang was successful in blocking funding for Samuel P. Huntington’s admission to the US national academy of Sciences, stating Huntington’s work as pseudoscience.To conclude the connotation of certain words hold vital notation that dramatically change the public’s opinion. It is true that hard science deals with positive subjects experimentation and analysis are important however the definition of science isn’t simply coined to one particular set of the idea. Therefore soft science i.e international relations, psychology, and economics should be classified as science. By classifying soft science as fake or pseudoscience and infant sucking the complexity of the field it, in fact, harms the language as it takes the legimatity away.  To end with the argument soft science favors the areas hard science doesn’t devel in. Work cited Richardson, Hannah (26 October 2010). “Humanities to lose English universities teaching grant”. BBC News. Retrieved 19 December 2012. “A different agenda”. Nature. 487 (7407): 271. 2012. doi:10.1038/487271a.Johnson, George; Laura Mansnerus (3 May 1987). “Science Academy Rejects Harvard Political Scientist”. New York Times. Retrieved 19 December 2012Lane, Charles (4 June 2012). “Congress should cut funding for political science research”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 December 2012.Latour, B. (1990). “Drawing things together”. In M. Lynch; S. Woolgar. Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 19–68.