Jump to content

Hard and soft science: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Criticism: Changed "can" to "may" and added "as a result" to clarify that the Nature editorial is not arguing for the dismissal of soft sciences.
expand definition section, add new section on literature results
Line 3: Line 3:
'''Hard science''' and '''soft science''' are [[colloquialism|colloquial]] terms used to compare [[scientific field]]s on the basis of perceived [[Scientific method|methodological rigor]], exactitude, and objectivity.<ref name="Nature 2005">{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1038/4351003a | title = In praise of soft science | journal = Nature | volume = 435 | issue = 7045 | pages = 1003–2005 | year = 2005 | pmid = | pmc = }}</ref><ref name="Wilson 2012">{{cite news|last=Wilson|first=Timothy D.|title='Soft' sciences don't deserve the snobbery|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/12/opinion/la-oe-wilson-social-sciences-20120712|accessdate=19 December 2012|newspaper=The Los Angeles Times|date=12 July 2012}}</ref><ref name="Frost nd">{{Cite web| url=http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.1/soft.htm| accessdate=10 August 2009| title=Soft science and hard news| publisher=[[Metanews]]| work=[[Columbia University]]| first=Pamela| last=Frost}}</ref> Roughly speaking, the [[natural science]]s are considered "hard", whereas the [[social science]]s are usually described as "soft".<ref name="Frost nd" />
'''Hard science''' and '''soft science''' are [[colloquialism|colloquial]] terms used to compare [[scientific field]]s on the basis of perceived [[Scientific method|methodological rigor]], exactitude, and objectivity.<ref name="Nature 2005">{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1038/4351003a | title = In praise of soft science | journal = Nature | volume = 435 | issue = 7045 | pages = 1003–2005 | year = 2005 | pmid = | pmc = }}</ref><ref name="Wilson 2012">{{cite news|last=Wilson|first=Timothy D.|title='Soft' sciences don't deserve the snobbery|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/12/opinion/la-oe-wilson-social-sciences-20120712|accessdate=19 December 2012|newspaper=The Los Angeles Times|date=12 July 2012}}</ref><ref name="Frost nd">{{Cite web| url=http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.1/soft.htm| accessdate=10 August 2009| title=Soft science and hard news| publisher=[[Metanews]]| work=[[Columbia University]]| first=Pamela| last=Frost}}</ref> Roughly speaking, the [[natural science]]s are considered "hard", whereas the [[social science]]s are usually described as "soft".<ref name="Frost nd" />


==Definition==
==Definition and history==
Precise definitions vary,<ref name="Smith et al 2000">{{cite journal | last1 = Smith | first1 = Laurence D. | last2 = Best | first2 = Lisa A. | last3 = Stubbs | first3 = D. Alan | last4 = Johnston | first4 = John | last5 = Bastiani Archibald | first5 = Andrea | year = 2000 | title = Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences: A Latourian Survey of Inscription Practices | journal = Social Studies of Science | volume = 30 | issue = 1 | pages = 73–94 | publisher = | jstor = 285770 | doi = 10.1177/030631200030001003}}</ref> but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing [[Prediction#Prediction in science|testable predictions]], performing [[Scientific control|controlled experiments]], relying on [[Quantification (science)|quantifiable]] data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and [[objectivity (science)|objectivity]], and generally applying a purer form of the [[scientific method]].<ref name="Wilson 2012" /><ref>{{cite book| first=John| last=Lemons| year=1996| publisher=Blackwell |isbn=0865424764| title=Scientific Uncertainty and Environmental Problem Solving| page=99}}</ref><ref name="Rose 1997">{{cite book|last=Rose|first=Steven|title=Lifelines: Biology Beyond Determinism|year=1997|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=9780195120356|url=http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/rose-lifelines.html|chapter=Chapter One}}</ref><ref name="Gutting 2012">{{cite news|last=Gutting|first=Gary|title=How Reliable Are the Social Sciences?|url=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/how-reliable-are-the-social-sciences/|accessdate=19 December 2012|newspaper=The New York Times|date=17 May 2012}}</ref><ref name="Diamond 1987">{{cite news|last=Diamond|first=Jared|title=Soft sciences are often harder than hard sciences|url=http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Diamond%201987.htm|accessdate=19 December 2012|newspaper=Discover|date=August 1987}}</ref> A closely related idea (originating in the nineteenth century with [[Auguste Comte]]) is that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as rigor, "development", and whether they are "theoretical" or "applied", with [[physics]], and [[chemistry]] typically being the hardest, [[biology]] in an intermediate position, and the social sciences being the softest.<ref name="Smith et al 2000" /><ref name="Lodahl & Gordon 1972">{{cite journal | last1 = Lodahl | first1 = Janice Beyer | last2 = Gordon | first2 = Gerald | year = 1972 | title = The Structure of Scientific Fields and the Functioning of University Graduate Departments | journal = American Sociological Review | volume = 37 | issue = 1 | pages = | publisher = | jstor = | doi = 10.2307/2093493 | url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/2093493 | format = | accessdate = }}</ref>
Precise definitions vary,<ref name="Smith et al 2000">{{cite journal | last1 = Smith | first1 = Laurence D. | last2 = Best | first2 = Lisa A. | last3 = Stubbs | first3 = D. Alan | last4 = Johnston | first4 = John | last5 = Bastiani Archibald | first5 = Andrea | year = 2000 | title = Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences: A Latourian Survey of Inscription Practices | journal = Social Studies of Science | volume = 30 | issue = 1 | pages = 73–94 | publisher = | jstor = 285770 | doi = 10.1177/030631200030001003}}</ref> but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing [[Prediction#Prediction in science|testable predictions]], performing [[Scientific control|controlled experiments]], relying on [[Quantification (science)|quantifiable]] data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and [[objectivity (science)|objectivity]], and generally applying a purer form of the [[scientific method]].<ref name="Wilson 2012" /><ref>{{cite book| first=John| last=Lemons| year=1996| publisher=Blackwell |isbn=0865424764| title=Scientific Uncertainty and Environmental Problem Solving| page=99}}</ref><ref name="Rose 1997">{{cite book|last=Rose|first=Steven|title=Lifelines: Biology Beyond Determinism|year=1997|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=9780195120356|url=http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/rose-lifelines.html|chapter=Chapter One}}</ref><ref name="Gutting 2012">{{cite news|last=Gutting|first=Gary|title=How Reliable Are the Social Sciences?|url=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/how-reliable-are-the-social-sciences/|accessdate=19 December 2012|newspaper=The New York Times|date=17 May 2012}}</ref><ref name="Diamond 1987">{{cite news|last=Diamond|first=Jared|title=Soft sciences are often harder than hard sciences|url=http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/607%20Diamond%201987.htm|accessdate=19 December 2012|newspaper=Discover|date=August 1987}}</ref> A closely related idea (originating in the nineteenth century with [[Auguste Comte]]) is that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as rigor, "development", and whether they are "theoretical" or "applied", with [[physics]], and [[chemistry]] typically being the hardest, [[biology]] in an intermediate position, and the social sciences being the softest.<ref name="Smith et al 2000" /><ref name="Lodahl & Gordon 1972">{{cite journal | last1 = Lodahl | first1 = Janice Beyer | last2 = Gordon | first2 = Gerald | year = 1972 | title = The Structure of Scientific Fields and the Functioning of University Graduate Departments | journal = American Sociological Review | volume = 37 | issue = 1 | pages = | publisher = | jstor = | doi = 10.2307/2093493 | url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/2093493 | format = | accessdate = }}</ref>


Some [[Philosophy of science|philosophers]] and [[Sociology of scientific knowledge|sociologists of science]] have questioned the relationship between these characteristics and perceived hardness or softness. The more "developed" hard sciences do not necessarily have a greater degree of [[scientific consensus|consensus]] or selectivity in accepting new results.<ref name="Cole 1983">{{cite journal | last1 = Cole | first1 = Stephen | last2 = | first2 = | year = 1983 | title = The Hierarchy of the Sciences? | journal = American Journal of Sociology | volume = 89 | issue = 1 | pages = | publisher = | jstor = | doi = 10.1086/227835 | url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/2779049 | format = | accessdate = }}</ref> Commonly cited methodological differences are also not a reliable indicator. [[Psychology|Psychologists]] use controlled experiments and [[economics|economists]] use mathematical modelling, but as social sciences both are usually considered soft sciences,<ref name="Nature 2005" /><ref name="Wilson 2012" /> while natural sciences such as biology do not always aim to generate testable predictions.<ref name="Rose 1997" /> There are some measurable differences between hard and soft sciences. For example, hard sciences make more [[Graphism thesis|extensive use of graphs]],<ref name="Smith et al 2000" /><ref>{{cite book|last=Latour|first=B.|title=Representation in scientific practice|year=1990|publisher=MIT Press|location=Cambridge, MA|pages=19–68|editor=M. Lynch|editor2=S. Woolgar|chapter=Drawing things together}}</ref> and soft sciences are more prone to a rapid turnover of [[buzzwords]].<ref name="Bentley 2008">{{Cite journal | last1 = Bentley | first1 = R. A. | editor1-last = Allen | editor1-first = Colin | title = Random Drift versus Selection in Academic Vocabulary: An Evolutionary Analysis of Published Keywords | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0003057 | journal = PLoS ONE | volume = 3 | issue = 8 | pages = e3057 | year = 2008 | pmid = 18728786| pmc =2518107 }}</ref>
Some [[Philosophy of science|philosophers]] and [[Sociology of scientific knowledge|sociologists of science]] have questioned the relationship between these characteristics and perceived hardness or softness. The more "developed" hard sciences do not necessarily have a greater degree of [[scientific consensus|consensus]] or selectivity in accepting new results.<ref name="Cole 1983">{{cite journal | last1 = Cole | first1 = Stephen | last2 = | first2 = | year = 1983 | title = The Hierarchy of the Sciences? | journal = American Journal of Sociology | volume = 89 | issue = 1 | pages = | publisher = | jstor = | doi = 10.1086/227835 | url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/2779049 | format = | accessdate = }}</ref> Commonly cited methodological differences are also not a reliable indicator. [[Psychology|Psychologists]] use controlled experiments and [[economics|economists]] use mathematical modelling, but as social sciences both are usually considered soft sciences,<ref name="Nature 2005" /><ref name="Wilson 2012" /> while natural sciences such as biology do not always aim to generate testable predictions.<ref name="Rose 1997" /> There are some measurable differences between hard and soft sciences. For example, hard sciences make more [[Graphism thesis|extensive use of graphs]],<ref name="Smith et al 2000" /><ref>{{cite book|last=Latour|first=B.|title=Representation in scientific practice|year=1990|publisher=MIT Press|location=Cambridge, MA|pages=19–68|editor=M. Lynch|editor2=S. Woolgar|chapter=Drawing things together}}</ref> and soft sciences are more prone to a rapid turnover of [[buzzwords]].<ref name="Bentley 2008">{{Cite journal | last1 = Bentley | first1 = R. A. | editor1-last = Allen | editor1-first = Colin | title = Random Drift versus Selection in Academic Vocabulary: An Evolutionary Analysis of Published Keywords | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0003057 | journal = PLoS ONE | volume = 3 | issue = 8 | pages = e3057 | year = 2008 | pmid = 18728786| pmc =2518107 }}</ref>

The idea of a hierarchy among the sciences was proposed by [[Auguste Comte]] in the 1800s. He identified astronomy as the most general science,<ref group=n>Comte viewed astronomy as studying the physics of the entire cosmos, calling it “celestial physics.” He classified the rest of physics (under the modern definition) as “terrestrial physics,” which was therefore less general.</ref> followed by physics, chemistry, biology, then sociology. This view was highly influential, and was intended to classify fields based on their degree of intellectual development and the complexity of their subject matter. In 1950, Conant proposed that sciences can be classified in terms of their “degree of empiricism,” and in 1967 Storer distinguished between the natural sciences as hard and the social sciences as soft.<ref name="Cole 1983"/> Storer defined hardness in terms of the degree to which a field uses mathematics and described a trend of scientific fields increasing in hardness over time, identifying features of increased hardness as including better integration and organization of knowledge, an improved ability to detect errors, and an increase in the difficulty of learning the subject.<ref name="Storer1967">{{cite journal| author=Storer NW| title=The hard sciences and the soft: some sociological observations. | journal=Bull Med Libr Assoc | year= 1967 | volume= 55 | issue= 1 | pages= 75-84 | pmid=6016373 | doi= | pmc=198502 | url= https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6016373}}</ref>

==Data==

Cole 1983 described a number of his own studies which failed to find evidence for a hierarchy with regard to a field’s core of knowledge, degree of codification, or research material. Differences that he did find included a tendency for textbooks in softer sciences to rely on more recent work, while the material in textbooks from the harder sciences was more consistent over time.<ref name="Cole 1983"/> Additionally, Simonton 2004 suggested Cole might have missed some relationships in the data because he studied individual measurements without accounting for the way multiple measurements could trend in the same direction, and because not all the criteria that could indicate a discipline’s scientific status were analyzed.<ref name="Simonton 2004">{{cite journal| author=Simonton DK| title=Psychology’s Status as a Scientific Discipline: Its Empirical Placement Within an Implicit Hierarchy of the Sciences. | journal=Review of General Psychology | year= 2004 | volume= 8 | issue= 1 | pages= 59-67 | doi=10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.59| url= http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/gpr/8/1/59.html}} </ref>

Cleveland 1984 performed a survey of 57 journals and found that natural science journals used many more graphs than journals in mathematics or social science, and that social science journals often presented large amounts of observational data in the absence of graphs. The amount of page area used for graphs ranged from 0% to 31%, and the variation was primarily due to the number of graphs included rather than their sizes.<ref name="Cleveland1984">{{cite journal| author=Cleveland WS| title=Graphs in Scientific Publications | journal=The American Statistician| year= 1984 | volume= 38 | issue= 4 | pages= 261-269 | doi=10.2307/2683400 | url= http://www.jstor.org/stable/2683400}} </ref> Further analyses by Smith 2000, based on samples of graphs from journals in seven major scientific disciplines, found that the amount of graph usage correlated “almost perfectly” with hardness (r=0.97). They also suggested that the hierarchy applies with individual fields, and demonstrated the same result using ten subfields of psychology (r=0.93).<ref name="Smith2000">{{cite journal| author=Smith LD, Best LA, Stubbs A, Johnston J, Archibald AB| title=Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences| journal=Social Studies of Science| year= 2000 | volume= 30 | issue= 1 | pages= 73-94 | doi= 10.1177/030631200030001003| url= http://sss.sagepub.com/content/30/1/73 }} </ref>

Fanelli 2010 proposed that we expect more positive outcomes in “softer” sciences because there are fewer constraints on researcher bias. They found that among research papers that tested a hypothesis, the frequency of positive results was predicted by the perceived hardness of the field. For example, the social sciences as a whole had a 2.3-fold increased odds of positive results compared to the physical sciences, with the biological sciences in between. They added that this supported the idea that the social sciences and natural sciences differ only in degree, as long as the social sciences follow the scientific approach.<ref name="Fanelli2010">{{cite journal| author=Fanelli D| title="Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. | journal=PLoS One | year= 2010 | volume= 5 | issue= 4 | pages= e10068 | pmid=20383332 | doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0010068 | pmc=2850928 | url= https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20383332}}</ref>

Fanelli 2013 tested whether the ability of researchers in a field to “achieve consensus and accumulate knowledge” increases with the hardness of the science, and sampled 29,000 papers from 12 disciplines using measurements that indicate the degree of scholarly consensus. Out of the three possibilities (hierarchy, hard/soft distinction, or no ordering), the results supported a hierarchy, with physical sciences performing the best followed by biological sciences and then social sciences. The results also held within disciplines, as well as when mathematics and the humanities were included.<ref name="Fanelli2013">{{cite journal| author=Fanelli D, Glänzel W| title=Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences. | journal=PLoS One | year= 2013 | volume= 8 | issue= 6 | pages= e66938 | pmid=23840557 | doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0066938 | pmc=3694152 | url= https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23840557}} </ref>


==Criticism==
==Criticism==
Line 19: Line 31:
* [[Hard science fiction]]
* [[Hard science fiction]]
* [[Soft science fiction]]
* [[Soft science fiction]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=n}}


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 07:39, 6 August 2016

Part of a series on
Science
Fields (Outline / List)
Intrascientific fields
Extrascientific fields
Scientific integrity
Instruments
This is a subseries on philosophy. In order to explore related topics, please visit navigation.

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity.[1][2][3] Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered "hard", whereas the social sciences are usually described as "soft".[3]

Definition and history

Precise definitions vary,[4] but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.[2][5][6][7][8] A closely related idea (originating in the nineteenth century with Auguste Comte) is that scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft on the basis of factors such as rigor, "development", and whether they are "theoretical" or "applied", with physics, and chemistry typically being the hardest, biology in an intermediate position, and the social sciences being the softest.[4][9]

Some philosophers and sociologists of science have questioned the relationship between these characteristics and perceived hardness or softness. The more "developed" hard sciences do not necessarily have a greater degree of consensus or selectivity in accepting new results.[10] Commonly cited methodological differences are also not a reliable indicator. Psychologists use controlled experiments and economists use mathematical modelling, but as social sciences both are usually considered soft sciences,[1][2] while natural sciences such as biology do not always aim to generate testable predictions.[6] There are some measurable differences between hard and soft sciences. For example, hard sciences make more extensive use of graphs,[4][11] and soft sciences are more prone to a rapid turnover of buzzwords.[12]

The idea of a hierarchy among the sciences was proposed by Auguste Comte in the 1800s. He identified astronomy as the most general science,[n 1] followed by physics, chemistry, biology, then sociology. This view was highly influential, and was intended to classify fields based on their degree of intellectual development and the complexity of their subject matter. In 1950, Conant proposed that sciences can be classified in terms of their “degree of empiricism,” and in 1967 Storer distinguished between the natural sciences as hard and the social sciences as soft.[10] Storer defined hardness in terms of the degree to which a field uses mathematics and described a trend of scientific fields increasing in hardness over time, identifying features of increased hardness as including better integration and organization of knowledge, an improved ability to detect errors, and an increase in the difficulty of learning the subject.[13]

Data

Cole 1983 described a number of his own studies which failed to find evidence for a hierarchy with regard to a field’s core of knowledge, degree of codification, or research material. Differences that he did find included a tendency for textbooks in softer sciences to rely on more recent work, while the material in textbooks from the harder sciences was more consistent over time.[10] Additionally, Simonton 2004 suggested Cole might have missed some relationships in the data because he studied individual measurements without accounting for the way multiple measurements could trend in the same direction, and because not all the criteria that could indicate a discipline’s scientific status were analyzed.[14]

Cleveland 1984 performed a survey of 57 journals and found that natural science journals used many more graphs than journals in mathematics or social science, and that social science journals often presented large amounts of observational data in the absence of graphs. The amount of page area used for graphs ranged from 0% to 31%, and the variation was primarily due to the number of graphs included rather than their sizes.[15] Further analyses by Smith 2000, based on samples of graphs from journals in seven major scientific disciplines, found that the amount of graph usage correlated “almost perfectly” with hardness (r=0.97). They also suggested that the hierarchy applies with individual fields, and demonstrated the same result using ten subfields of psychology (r=0.93).[16]

Fanelli 2010 proposed that we expect more positive outcomes in “softer” sciences because there are fewer constraints on researcher bias. They found that among research papers that tested a hypothesis, the frequency of positive results was predicted by the perceived hardness of the field. For example, the social sciences as a whole had a 2.3-fold increased odds of positive results compared to the physical sciences, with the biological sciences in between. They added that this supported the idea that the social sciences and natural sciences differ only in degree, as long as the social sciences follow the scientific approach.[17]

Fanelli 2013 tested whether the ability of researchers in a field to “achieve consensus and accumulate knowledge” increases with the hardness of the science, and sampled 29,000 papers from 12 disciplines using measurements that indicate the degree of scholarly consensus. Out of the three possibilities (hierarchy, hard/soft distinction, or no ordering), the results supported a hierarchy, with physical sciences performing the best followed by biological sciences and then social sciences. The results also held within disciplines, as well as when mathematics and the humanities were included.[18]

Criticism

Critics of the concept argue that soft sciences are implicitly considered to be less "legitimate" scientific fields,[2] or simply not scientific at all.[19] An editorial in Nature stated that social science findings are more likely to intersect with everyday experience and may be dismissed as "obvious or insignificant" as a result.[20] Being labelled a soft science can affect the perceived value of a discipline to society and the amount of funding available to it.[3] In the 1980s, mathematician Serge Lang successfully blocked influential political scientist Samuel P. Huntington's admission to the US National Academy of Sciences, describing Huntington's use of mathematics to quantify the relationship between factors such as "social frustration" (Lang asked Huntington if he possessed a "social-frustration meter") as "pseudoscience".[8][21][22] During the late 2000s recessions, social science was disproportionately targeted for funding cuts compared to mathematics and natural science.[23][24] Proposals were made for the United States' National Science Foundation to cease funding disciplines such as political science altogether.[20][25] Both of these incidents prompted critical discussion of the distinction between hard and soft sciences.[8][20]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Comte viewed astronomy as studying the physics of the entire cosmos, calling it “celestial physics.” He classified the rest of physics (under the modern definition) as “terrestrial physics,” which was therefore less general.

References

  1. ^ a b "In praise of soft science". Nature. 435 (7045): 1003–2005. 2005. doi:10.1038/4351003a.
  2. ^ a b c d Wilson, Timothy D. (12 July 2012). "'Soft' sciences don't deserve the snobbery". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  3. ^ a b c Frost, Pamela. "Soft science and hard news". Columbia University. Metanews. Retrieved 10 August 2009.
  4. ^ a b c Smith, Laurence D.; Best, Lisa A.; Stubbs, D. Alan; Johnston, John; Bastiani Archibald, Andrea (2000). "Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences: A Latourian Survey of Inscription Practices". Social Studies of Science. 30 (1): 73–94. doi:10.1177/030631200030001003. JSTOR 285770.
  5. ^ Lemons, John (1996). Scientific Uncertainty and Environmental Problem Solving. Blackwell. p. 99. ISBN 0865424764.
  6. ^ a b Rose, Steven (1997). "Chapter One". Lifelines: Biology Beyond Determinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195120356.
  7. ^ Gutting, Gary (17 May 2012). "How Reliable Are the Social Sciences?". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  8. ^ a b c Diamond, Jared (August 1987). "Soft sciences are often harder than hard sciences". Discover. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  9. ^ Lodahl, Janice Beyer; Gordon, Gerald (1972). "The Structure of Scientific Fields and the Functioning of University Graduate Departments". American Sociological Review. 37 (1). doi:10.2307/2093493.
  10. ^ a b c Cole, Stephen (1983). "The Hierarchy of the Sciences?". American Journal of Sociology. 89 (1). doi:10.1086/227835.
  11. ^ Latour, B. (1990). "Drawing things together". In M. Lynch; S. Woolgar (eds.). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 19–68.
  12. ^ Bentley, R. A. (2008). Allen, Colin (ed.). "Random Drift versus Selection in Academic Vocabulary: An Evolutionary Analysis of Published Keywords". PLoS ONE. 3 (8): e3057. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003057. PMC 2518107. PMID 18728786.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  13. ^ Storer NW (1967). "The hard sciences and the soft: some sociological observations". Bull Med Libr Assoc. 55 (1): 75–84. PMC 198502. PMID 6016373.
  14. ^ Simonton DK (2004). "Psychology's Status as a Scientific Discipline: Its Empirical Placement Within an Implicit Hierarchy of the Sciences". Review of General Psychology. 8 (1): 59–67. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.59.
  15. ^ Cleveland WS (1984). "Graphs in Scientific Publications". The American Statistician. 38 (4): 261–269. doi:10.2307/2683400.
  16. ^ Smith LD, Best LA, Stubbs A, Johnston J, Archibald AB (2000). "Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences". Social Studies of Science. 30 (1): 73–94. doi:10.1177/030631200030001003.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. ^ Fanelli D (2010). ""Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences". PLoS One. 5 (4): e10068. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068. PMC 2850928. PMID 20383332.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  18. ^ Fanelli D, Glänzel W (2013). "Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences". PLoS One. 8 (6): e66938. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066938. PMC 3694152. PMID 23840557.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  19. ^ Berezow, Alex B. (13 July 2012). "Why psychology isn't science". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  20. ^ a b c "A different agenda". Nature. 487 (7407): 271. 2012. doi:10.1038/487271a.
  21. ^ Johnson, George; Laura Mansnerus (3 May 1987). "Science Academy Rejects Harvard Political Scientist". New York Times. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  22. ^ Change, Kenneth; Warren Leary (25 September 2005). "Serge Lang, 78, a Gadfly and Mathematical Theorist, Dies". New York Times. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  23. ^ Richardson, Hannah (26 October 2010). "Humanities to lose English universities teaching grant". BBC News. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  24. ^ Jump, Paul (20 January 2011). "Social science emulates scientific method to escape retrenchment". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
  25. ^ Lane, Charles (4 June 2012). "Congress should cut funding for political science research". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 December 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_and_soft_science&oldid=733218912"