>For the record: I am not saying social sciences are worthless. Far from
>it. Yet they study extremely complex objects by less stringent methods
>than hard sciences, and hence should not be labeled by the same term.
I believe that is has already been established that hard scientists
possess little tolerance for ambiguity. But social scientists, faced
with studying complex processes for which they often end up
formulating a set of interrelated hypothesis that must be proved or
disproved within the limited confines of acceptable research
protocols, learn to accomodate grey areas to some extent. Does this
indicate a less stringent methodology? Not in my opinion.
Sin,
Kathryn Aegis