Everyone considers the hard sciences objective. This is hard to disagree with--facts are facts, proved equations are proved equations, observations and tendencies are observations and tendencies. People seem to push the soft sciences (especially political science, gov, econ, and ethics) aside because they automatically assume they are subjective, and therefore, weak. It's as if if some people disagree, then no one is correct and the science must not be substantial or valuable. Sorry relativists, but people can be wrong...(not to say I don't respect their opinions!!!) What if people considered ethics or government theory objective? They definitely wouldn't be dubbed "soft sciences" anymore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Clarify a bit for me if you would...
What needs to change? Is it our attitude toward the natural sciences, i.e., should we acknowledge as being substantial and valuable despite the fact that they are subjective? Or are you suggesting that the human sciences are in fact objective, and because of this worthy of respect?
Post a Comment