An ongoing feud between scientists lies beneath the surface of scientific discourse. Virtually all scientists have an opinion about it, and there are no easy answers. This far-reaching debate is the everlasting rivalry between the “hard sciences” and the “soft sciences.”
The distinction between hard and soft science is a fluid one. Many sciences don’t fit cleanly into one category or the other. Hard sciences usually refer to the more technical, quantitative disciplines like physics and chemistry, while soft sciences like psychology, ecology or paleontology use qualitative, observational or historical data. There are no official definitions for either term, as the titles are disputed as vigorously as their implications.
Soft sciences are often seen as inferior, their observational methods disparaged as weak and “wishy-washy.” This hierarchy of science is discussed more openly. Recently, doctors Michael Salter and Kathleen Boydell of the Hospital for Sick Children organized an interactive discussion about the respective strengths of the hard and soft sciences. Soft scientists were out in full force, complaining about the lack of respect and funding they receive.
The dominance of hard science isn’t just a perception, and it’s not merely an academic argument. Historically, when a debate about a physical phenomenon is supported by hard science on one side and soft science on the other, the hard scientific evidence has been taken as true. Although hard science is often right, all scientific evidence should be given as unbiased consideration as possible.
Take the example of Lord Kelvin. In 1862, he calculated the age of the Earth by measuring its rate of cooling. Since radioactivity hadn’t been discovered, he didn’t realize that the Earth’s core was continually generating heat. He therefore pegged the Earth’s age at between 20 and 400 million years, far younger than our current estimate of 4.5 billion years.
“He was wrong, but he was honestly wrong,” said Dr. Stephen Morris, a physicist at U of T. “There was a physical effect that was not taken into consideration.” Science, as a self-correcting field, is continually searching for ways to disprove itself. The problem is that Kelvin’s answer ignored the geological evidence, which showed that the Earth must have been much, much older. The mathematical evidence was favoured over the softer, observational evidence.
The problem with the hierarchy of science isn’t just a lack of accolades—the soft sciences also receive less funding. Over the past 10 years, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research awarded $3.4 billion to biomedical research (considered ‘hard’ in the medical field) and only $465 million to social, cultural, environmental, and population health studies.
Some would argue that the hard sciences are more important and therefore deserve more funding. Hard scientific disciplines are vital for continued understanding of the physical world. But is knowing the lifespan of distant stars more important, and more deserving of public money, than figuring out the evolution of species based on the fossil record? Many scientific questions can’t be answered by physical measurements and calculations. Questions about evolution, the environment and human psychology need softer approaches to gain a full understanding.
The soft sciences may be gaining ground, however.
“Soft sciences are becoming harder and harder,” explained Dr. Stephen Morris of U of T’s physics department.
Formerly soft sciences are becoming more technical, with powerful computers that manage data to account for variables in a way that has never been possible, said Dr. Ray Carlberg, also from the department of physics. “Biology, and some areas of psychology, now have a rigorous physical understanding of what’s going on,” he said.
The soft sciences are in some ways able to achieve a level of mathematical rigour equal to that found in the hard sciences.
But is this really a compliment? Many soft scientists don’t feel that a lack of mathematical rigour is the only thing stopping them from gaining the respect enjoyed by the hard sciences. They feel that soft sciences should be appreciated for what they are, and not be forced to use math to be accepted. Their methods and procedures should be given equal value to the statistical methods found on the “hard” side of the fence. Paleontology, for example, gives a unique insight into the process of evolution without any use of mathematics. Stephen Jay Gould, a noted paleontologist, wrote that paleontology “uses a different mode of explanation, rooted in the comparative and observational richness of [the] data.”
Physicist Luis Alvarez once said, “Paleontologists… are really not very good scientists. They’re more like stamp collectors.” Many hard scientists feel that although soft scientists may investigate relevant questions, their work isn’t “real science.” So what is real science? Science is a systematic organization of collected knowledge. It’s an examination of the world around us. For Dr. Morris, science is “whatever can withstand intense skeptical scrutiny.”
Soft sciences do fit within that definition. The theory of evolution, for example, is based mainly on soft science, and it has withstood all scientific (if not religious) scrutiny to date. Scientific pursuits should use the best methods available for answering their questions, whether hard or soft.
Because of the historical dominance of the hard sciences, it is less necessary to argue for their continued support. The lines between different types of science are blurred as they interact and complement each other: many scientists believe the distinction between “hard” and “soft” should and will slowly fade. “Most scientists have respect for other scientists,” said Dr Carlberg, adding, “In the end we’re all interested in ideas, which are neither hard nor soft.” This mutual respect will be necessary for the success of science in its ultimate goal, the search for knowledge.
