>>12230452"soft science"
The academic excuse for humanities """people""" to not be thorough in their analysis or research of something.
These are also the saltiest of people because they know their research is not very accurate and when you point that out, they will word smith some bullshit or just flat out call you names.
Just because something is "science-like" does not mean you can call it a science. There should be no definition as a "soft-science" or "hard-science". You're either making predictions, testing something and then explaining it, and then having someone else repeat and call you on your b/s or not.
I do think some "soft-sciences" aren't "soft-sciences" like they are claimed to be.
You can distinguish between fields that use more science and other fields that use less. The fields that use more is because it's usually easier to predict and test ACCURATELY, and perhaps with PRECISION (physics).
Psychology is an area that makes predictions about human thought, where it's not really important to accurately and precisely confirm those predictions, as they tend to use generalised information (population statistics).
They can predict trends and human behavior over large populations semi-accurately, but I wouldn't say that they predict individual behavior well.
This is where for individuals, they use a whole heap feelsy human emotion tactics, and prior experience to work out what someone is thinking. Which the only evidence to say that it works, is that it's been tried a heap of times. Which is not science (but you could say it has elements of a scientific method or procedure).
