No science started out as a “hard science”. Psychology is hard to quantify yet, because our currently available options for measurements are insufficient.
? That would still be biology and therefore reducible to chemistry and physics.
The approach of “everything is reducible to physics” is actually a philosophical theory that tries to describe what is reality. Is the material world everything that exists? Or are our thoughts (our knowing of things) actually a different reality? Etc.
In the end, the differentiation into the different sciences is simply an aid for people. I wouldn’t pay it that much attention because it really doesn’t tell you anything.
Being reducible is part of it, but I think reproducible is more important. Psychology is not reproducible. You can get statistical equivalents, but not exact reproduction of results.
I think being reducible is all of it. Even if it’s reproducable you can know THAT something is true, but not WHY it’s true. I think the why, or at least the ability and intention to get there, makes something a hard science.
There’s an assumption there that psychology is not a hard science. An assumption that I agree with though.
No science started out as a “hard science”. Psychology is hard to quantify yet, because our currently available options for measurements are insufficient.
Hard sciences are reducible. Pharmacology reduces to biology, reduces to chemistry, reduces physics.
The hard science of the brain and mind is neuroscience.
? That would still be biology and therefore reducible to chemistry and physics.
The approach of “everything is reducible to physics” is actually a philosophical theory that tries to describe what is reality. Is the material world everything that exists? Or are our thoughts (our knowing of things) actually a different reality? Etc.
In the end, the differentiation into the different sciences is simply an aid for people. I wouldn’t pay it that much attention because it really doesn’t tell you anything.
What would still be biology?
Neuroscience is either in medicine or in biology. And following the weird meme of science hierarchy, neuroscience is just biology.
It reduces to biology. That’s why it’s a hard science. Saying it’s just biology is like saying biology is just chemistry.
Being reducible is part of it, but I think reproducible is more important. Psychology is not reproducible. You can get statistical equivalents, but not exact reproduction of results.
I think being reducible is all of it. Even if it’s reproducable you can know THAT something is true, but not WHY it’s true. I think the why, or at least the ability and intention to get there, makes something a hard science.