>>14062620soft science is just a term for "extremely complex systems which are very, very difficult to predict compared to simple particle collisions"
The thing is, the soft sciences don't make strong claims like hard sciences do, because they obviously cant. But smoothbrains don't understand how to read papers well and think that the post written by a journalist undergrad who did a quick 5 min interview before writing a 10 minute article is gospel, and generally end up debating the minutia of a shitty pop-sci article instead of the actual article itself. Hell, I've seen people quite smuggly dismiss a science claim purely on how much it appeals to the IFLS crowd, having never bothered to open up the original paper.
>>14062888That's circular reasoning. In math, you say "I've decided to assume these axioms exist without proof, what followed from my assumption that these axioms exist?"
2+2=4 follows logically from general math axioms, you're claiming something more like this:
"Let's have an axiomatic assumption that 2+2=4. Since I now observe that 2+2=4, I can use that observation to prove that 2+2=4, and therefore my axiom is correct".
In chemistry or biology or physics, the theories are constructed based off of observations of how the outside world behaves, and any axioms (think central dogma of dna) are entirely constructed around observations, and can't be "proven" if you take the baby's first john stuart mill view of science.
