In this reeding that I did with the article "Soft Sciences are often harder than hard sciences" by Jared Diamond. In then the beginning of this article I thought that he might be talking down to the soft sciences because he uses the sentence "Do the so-called soft sciences, like political science and psychology, really constitute science at all, and do they deserve to stand beside the 'hard sciences," like chemistry and physics." I just feel that the writer of this was talking down to the softer sciences, and that they weren't that important as the harder sciences like physics or chemistry. But then he has worked in many different sciences fields of work: physics, chemistry, physiology, and ecology. Which after hearing this made my think that he has the knowledge so he made plenty of valid points.
I thought that it was a little funny to watch Lang vs. Huntington fight over the National Academy of Sciences(NAS) with all of the little thins that they would do to each other, with all of the bashing of each other.
In this piece of writing I felt to me that I wasn't really getting the points in the article, and I felt that for me it was a little hard to follow it. I guess that this article I just wasn't really into it so I was confused in some areas.
No comments:
Post a Comment