Open Access Journal of Complementary
& Alternative Medicine
DOI: 10.32474/OAJCAM.2024.05.000209
ISSN: 2644-1217
Joel Snell*
Arlington Institute, USA
*Corresponding author: Joel Snell, Arlington Institute, USA
Received:
February 02, 2024
BEHAVIORAL METHODOLOGIES
Mini Review
Published:
Abstract
February 26, 2024
This article addresses the antagonism between the hard sciences and “soft “social sciences. It is suggested that the name social
sciences be changed, and the level of acceptance be reexamined. Further, the findings should be reported at the level of discovery for
the social sciences (necessary but not sufficient), and the level of verification for the hard sciences (consistently valid and reliable.)
Natural and social sciences has been used, the author believes that this rebranding is not sufficient to change attitudes and behavior
of “hard core” hard scientists.
Introduction
The author affirms that the social sciences are “soft” sciences.
They are needed more than ever. However, they need to change
their name to Behavioral Methodologies, or related. This article
will discuss and defend the name change.Social sciences include
psychology, political science, and sociology. It even includes
economics which is near the Rubicon. Although, it is probably the
most demanding discipline, it still deals with the interaction of
people. The population is generally non-rational. Thus, it cannot be
thought of as science or hard science (1).
Description
Both terms (hard and soft) were originated by Comte around
1858. (2) It was based on intellectual development and complexity
of the subject. Other modifications were relative to productivity
(3,4) and with the analysis of the degree of mathematics and related
needed by the hard sciences. (5) He found differences in those hard
sciences had more continuity and consistency favoring the hard
sciences. (6) a researcher found more ratios based graphing in the
hard sciences.Professors discovered (7,8) more distinctions that
favored the hard sciences. Another demonstrated that a number
of published social sciences findings can be false. (9) Multiple
regression is a difficult social science strategy that is thought to be
lacking in reliability ./10Funding has been dramatically decreased
for the social sciences. This is very unfortunate as it still needs
support in improving research.
Discusssion
The Science Council (10) noted that the hard sciences were
superior to the social sciences by objective observations, evidence,
experiment, induction, repetition, critical analysis, verification
and testing.Importantly, the social sciences may find difficulty in
establishing A) a zero base line B) equidistance between numbers C)
ability to add, subtract, multiply and divide D) consistent outcomes
after replication. (11). Further, the hierarchy of nominal, ordinal,
interval, and ratio are not always clear (12) it was discovered
that treating ordinal and interval the same found no difference.
That can be argued as a strength or weakness. However, it could
be thought as a unifier in the years to come. (13) Last, sociologist
(14) indicated that new social science findings should be treated as
“discovery findings.” That means that the information gathered and
tested was like intervening material. It was necessary, but not yet
sufficient. The verification level was described as information that
was consistent in almost all the data gathered which is much larger.
That means valid and reliable appears to be an area that is more
likely to be a hard science.
Copyright © All rights are reserved by Joel Snell.
622
Open Acc J Comp & Alt Med
Volume 5 – Issue 2
Copyrights @ Joel Snell
Unfortunately, funding has been severely cut when we are at a
stage of blending disciplines together. That means that both hard and
soft analysis is needed to unearth complexities that cannot be tested
alone with just the hard sciences.The behavioral methodologies are
more likely to deal with heterogeneity. (15) let’s take a parking lot
outside of a school. How many students generally need to park? Do
they drive micro cars or big SUV’s. Do the width and length cars
remain consistent over the years? How many are bused to school
and how many walk? Will enrollment dramatically increase or
decrease. Can you bring all those numbers together and treat them
as the same or as “one?”There are numerous variables and they are
soft and changeable. Thus the behavioral methodologies are mixed
with the hard sciences.Behavioral Methodologist usually know if
the power of the answer comes from a Likert or a Thurnstone scale
or index .Both are not ratio, therefore the numbers used soften the
results.This may have a soft score, but you may not be able to add all
the various measures together to give a whole number compared
to another system.Physicists may complain about aspects of social
science but if they do nothing, traditional journalism will briefly
interview a few who may or may not be representative of the
whole of the population located in the area being studied. Surely,
they may be humbled a bit, but the story or findings are necessary
but not necessarily accurate.Journalism is so important for the
introduction of an event, but the Behavioral Methodologies can add
to the story and there may be a day when Science and Behavioral
Methodologies come together, and do not nullify the other. They
become a synergistic enterprise. Soft and hard sciences may soon
be translated into Behavioral Methodologies and Science (16).
Summary And Conclusion
Research will continue and borrow from both the hard and soft
sciences. It is important to note that they can complement each
other, but the name social sciences are misleading. Science is a
prestigious term, but it does not qualify for areas of hard to define
and measure that are usually left to the soft sciences. Thus the name
changes to BEHAVORIAL METHODOLOGIES. Education requires
both. This will be discussed at a later date. The goal is synergism.
This work is licensed under Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 License
To Submit Your Article Click Here:
Submit Article
The softer strategy is necessary, but not sufficient to answer some
of problems. (17).
References

1. Shapin S (2022) hard science and soft science: A political history of
   disciplinary array, History of Science, 1-421.
2. Cole S (1983) The Hierarchy of Sciences American Journal of Sociology,
   89(1).
3. Platts (1964) Strong Inference: Certain systematic methods of scientific
   thinking may produce more rapid progress than others Science,
   146,347-343.
4. Store N (1967) the Hard Sciences and the Soft: Sociological Observations,
   Bulletin of Medical Library Association, 55(1):75-84.
5. Cole S (1983) Ibid.

Cleveland W (1984) Graphs in Scientific Publications, the American
Staticistian, 38(4).
7. Fanelli, D. (2010) Positive Results Increase down the Hierarchy of the
Sciences PLOS ONE7: 5(4).
8. Fanelli D, Glanzell W (2013) Bibliometric Evidence for the Hierarchy of
the Sciences PLOS ONE 8(6):e66938.
9. Ioanndis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58,543-545.
10. Snell J (2020) Multiple Regression: Evolution and Analysis Education,
4/187-193.
11. Helmenstine A (2019) what is the difference Between Hard and Soft
Science, Thought co.
12. Winship C , Robert D Mare (1984) Regression Models with Ordinal
Variables, American Sociological Review.8 512-525.
13. Winship C, Robert Mare (1984) Ibid.
14. Zetterberg H (1963) On Theory and Verification, Towata, New Jersey:
Bedminster Press.
15. Snell J (2023) Authors opinion comes from “A.I.” who is the artificial
intelligence in the computer.
16. Babbie E (2014) the Practice of Social Research, Boston, MA: Cengate
Learning.
17. Sheppard M (2022) It’s Time to Retire the Terms “Hard” and
“Soft” Science, Forbes, 8,17
DOI: 10.32474/OAJCAM.2024.05.000209
Open Access Journal of Complementary
& Alternative Medicine
Assets of Publishing with us

• Global archiving of articles
• Immediate, unrestricted online access
• Rigorous Peer Review Process
• Authors Retain Copyrights
• Unique DOI for all articles
  Citation: Joel Snell*. BEHAVIORAL METHODOLOGIES. Open Acc J Comp & Alt Med 5(2) – 2024. OAJCAM.MS.ID.000209.
  DOI: 10.32474/OAJCAM.2024.05.000209
  623