Hard/Soft Sciences: Behavioral Methodologies

INTRODUCTION

In the scheme of the academic sciences, the top field is generally considered math and the bottom parameter is the humanities. In the middle, are at least two sciences are generally accepted as “science” They are physics and chemistry. These two have many subdivisions within them. They attract science oriented students and the applied fields use their structure of ratio numbers and rigor of validity and reliability, as well as testable hypotheses.

On an imaginary step of the sciences Biology, Astronomy, and Meteorology should also be included Bentley, R. A. (2008) the soft sciences, the author wants to discuss. Sociology is in the everyday existence of human kind. The author loves it, but knows that many academics do not. They come from the hard sciences. If sociology is not a science, the author would re-brand it as BEHAVORIAL METHODOLOGY. On the other hand, some of the critics of sociology, economics, political science, and psychology are rich in talent, but lacking compromise.

Please see the following.

PRIMITIVE TERMS

Science: This means the systematic study of the structure of behavior through the natural and physical world by observation and experiment.

Hard science

 Advance Science: For this article, it usually encompasses physics, and chemistry.

Science: Biology, Astronomy, Meteorology, and related.

Soft Science: This division includes economics, political science, sociology, and psychology (Ibid.)

Pseudoscience: This area includes fields that claim to be science but unfortunately are not. One that is very popular is astrology. The basic theory is that celestial forces impact personal behavior. The most important flaw is that the major theory stems from geo-centrism. That means that the sun rotates around the earth. A vast number of studies indicate just the opposite. The earth rotates around the sun. Elaborate tools of astrology are used to decide what will happen to the individual based upon this field on a day to day basis.

Behavioral Methodologies: This will be explained and defined in this article.

DISCUSSION:

Numerous critics of the “soft sciences” see them really as pseudoscience. Each field has it flaws, but defend themselves on the rules of conduct and the outcomes of the studies.

The major criticism can be obtained by keying in “criticisms” of economics, political science, sociology, or psychology. Read each field independently. All have unique problems.

Economics often portrays the individual as rational. It would appear that subjects are somewhere in between rational and irrational. The term is non-rational.

Political Science is thought not to have a core to the discipline but borrows heavily from other fields.

Sociology generally is described as too spread out or over diversified. That it settles for nominal and ordinal number properties. If anything, measurements are best tested by low impact statistics. Recently, this author published a paper in which ordinal and interval numbers have a close proximity and can be treated roughly the same to reduce false positives in multiple regression.

Psychology is generally favored because the American culture appears to support individualism. Further, brains can now be mapped and therefore psychological variables can be attached to the cerebral cortex, amaglyda, and other areas. However, there have been whole fields that have died in this discipline. It still claims to cling to some of these internal constructs of mental processes.

Redifining Divisions:

The author suggests that areas of sciences are still very young among humans. Although numerous years have been passed, it is not useful for the soft sciences to claim they are sciences. They may become sciences, but it has not arrived. History still uses descriptive statistics and that puts them in the humanities. However, the soft sciences may improve by some unique strategies that can convert all the data by multiplying by a constant. Or, it may be something else. Thus, the divisions as indicated earlier should make a modification. However, the 4 soft sciences could change their name to BEHAVORIAL METHODOLOGIES. It could be another name, but using science that covers human behavior is just not acceptable. Further, some enemies of the fields may become an advocate and may help to hardened measures of variables of the social sciences.

However, we are not there. Sir James George Frazier noted in the Golden Bough that humans drew from three sources Magic, Religion, and Science. Magic is back coming from the Neo-Pagans. Magic attempts to manipulate the unseen and if they are white magicians try to help others and self for improvement in the conditions in this reality. Religion has had a strong growth on the political Right. President Trump had an impact on the sciences by fighting it with large religious forces. Science has now made a comeback with the current president Joe Biden.

The Behavioral Methodologies can help to support the sciences. It could bring together how are systems are established and work with both history (a humanities) and economics to defend scientific training and thought. As an example, the author has taught Medical Sociology. Its real name should be The Social Organization of Medicine. Not one word is mentioned about the technical side of the field. This means surgery, medications, and related. Both science and behavioral methodologies can politically fight the psuedoscience, and work with the center and left of religion.

Last the latest polls have found that scientists and behavioral methodologist have become religious. That means two out of three. Since the 1960’s many folks who would have died now return to life and indicate that something is going on in another existence and that there appears to be stratification.

Regardless, two critics began in opposition to sociology  ended being ardent supporters. Sides  (2012) begins a discussion of execution. As he was doing research on the field he found that he could not complete his work without sociology.

Note: The author has a background in sociology, psychology, social psychology, counseling psychology, human geography, and a neo-phyte in social neuroscience. He also coined the term “biochemical sociology.”

References Cited:

Snell, Joel (2022)WORKING PAPER