Hard and soft science facts for kids
Hard science and soft science are common ways people talk about different scientific fields. These terms compare sciences based on how strict, exact, and objective they seem to be. Generally, subjects like physics, chemistry, and biology are called hard sciences. Subjects like psychology, sociology, and other social sciences are often called soft sciences.
People often say that hard sciences make testable predictions, use controlled experiments, rely on numbers and mathematical models, and are very accurate and objective. They also tend to have more agreement among scientists, progress faster, and use the scientific method in a very clear way. However, many philosophers and historians of science question if these ideas truly make one science "harder" or "softer." For example, social sciences like psychology use a lot of math, but they are still usually called soft sciences. Still, there are some real differences. Hard sciences, for instance, use more graphs in their research papers. The idea of "hard" and "soft" sciences has been criticized because it can make soft sciences seem less important or less scientific.
How These Terms Started
It's not clear exactly when the terms "hard science" and "soft science" first appeared. The phrase "hard science" was first seen in a journal in 1858. But the idea that sciences could be ranked from "hard" to "soft" came earlier.
The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857) had a similar idea. He thought that sciences could be put in order based on how developed and complex they were. He saw astronomy as the most general science, followed by physics, chemistry, biology, and then sociology. This idea was very influential.
Later, in 1967, a sociologist named Norman W. Storer clearly separated natural sciences (like physics) as hard and social sciences (like sociology) as soft. He said that a science was "harder" if it used more mathematics. He also noticed that scientific fields tended to become "harder" over time. This meant they got better at organizing knowledge, finding mistakes, and became more difficult to learn.
What Research Shows
Scientists have studied whether there are real differences between "hard" and "soft" sciences.
In 1984, a study looked at 57 different journals. It found that natural science journals used many more graphs than journals in mathematics or social science. Social science journals often showed a lot of raw data without graphs. Later studies in 2000 confirmed this. They found that how much a science used graphs was almost perfectly linked to how "hard" it was considered. This pattern was true for different fields and even for sub-fields within psychology.
In 2010, a researcher named Fanelli suggested that "softer" sciences might show more positive research results. This could happen because there are fewer rules to prevent a researcher's own opinions from influencing the results. He found that social sciences were more likely to report positive results compared to physical sciences. This supports the idea that social sciences and natural sciences are different in degree, but both can follow the scientific approach.
In 2013, Fanelli did another study. He looked at 29,000 research papers from 12 different subjects. He wanted to see if scientists in "harder" fields agreed more and built knowledge faster. His results showed a clear ranking: physical sciences performed best, then biological sciences, and then social sciences. This ranking also held true within different subjects and when mathematics and humanities were included.
Why Some People Criticize These Terms
Many people criticize the idea of "hard" versus "soft" sciences. They argue that calling a science "soft" can make it seem less important or not truly scientific.
For example, an article in the famous journal Nature pointed out that findings from social sciences often connect with everyday life. Because of this, people might dismiss them as "obvious" or "not important." Being labeled a "soft science" can also affect how much society values a subject and how much money it gets for research.
In the 1980s, a mathematician named Serge Lang successfully stopped a political scientist from joining the US National Academy of Sciences. Lang called the political scientist's work "pseudoscience" because it tried to use math to measure things like "social frustration."
During the Great Recession in the late 2000s, social sciences faced more funding cuts than mathematics and natural sciences. There were even proposals to stop the United States' National Science Foundation from funding subjects like political science entirely. These events led to a lot of discussion about whether the "hard" and "soft" science distinction was fair.
Also, the idea of hard versus soft science can be influenced by gender bias. If more women work in a certain science field, that field might be seen as "softer," even within STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) subjects. This perception of "softness" can then lead to the field being valued less.
See also
In Spanish: Ciencias duras y blandas para niños
- Exact sciences
- Hard and soft science fiction
- History of science
- STEM fields
