<p>(as disciplines)…</p>
<p>…in part because it’s harder to predict and measure human behavior than to predict and measure natural phenomena?</p>
<p>In my opinion, social sciences make you think in deep realms. Abortion, evolution, Darwinism, genetic engineering, capitalism, Marxism, culture, human rights, et cetera, are all huge topics and involve a lot of thinking. Natural sciences are just as similar, but more mechanical. It still makes you think deeply, about the world around you, and how things operate, which is also real interesting. I think a better way of putting it is Are social sciences tantamount to natural sciences? Or vice versa. Both sciences are very interesting and I think they are complementary instead of arguable over “harder”. Pick the one you like best to study.</p>
<p>Well, social scientists have to think mechanically/quantitatively (when applying the scientific method) as well as qualitatively. </p>
<p>Remember I’m talking about the social sciences here, not the humanities (Marxism, for example, is more philosophic than social scientific).</p>
<p>Partly, this depends on who you ask; depending on their strengths and weaknesses, different people will find different things easier/harder.</p>
<p>That said, I think the natural sciences are harder because there’s much less flexibility. There’s usually one right answer and only one. In the social sciences, things tend to be a bit more abstract.</p>
<p>I would argue that the social sciences are more difficult. For example, it’s harder to end violence than to cure cancer. Once you find a cure for cancer, cancer would no longer be a major cause of death, whereas violence will always persist because it’s extremely difficult to predict and control human behavior (as evidenced by violence existing for as long as humans have existed). In social science experiments, you’re testing an independent variable but also have to make sure that the experiment has ecological validity. To what degree is the outcome attributable to the independent variable, and how much of an impact did other factors play?</p>
<p>try becoming a doctor. you’ll know.</p>
<p>Sociology is harder than medicine as a discipline.</p>
<p>somewhat Offtopic, where does nueroscience fit in? Is it psychology (social science)… or biology (natural science)?</p>
<p>I would say neuroscience is natural science.</p>
<p>
That’s definitely not true. Medicine has more complexities and intricacies than most fields, and definitely more than sociology.</p>
<p>Like what? Maybe I’ll change my opinion. Right now, I still believe that it’s harder to solve social problems than medical problems.</p>
<p>^yet people will always respect a medical doctor much more than a person with a PhD in sociology.</p>
<p>so true…</p>
<p>social problems cant be solved. hopefully medical ones can be solved. you can’t stop human instincts, human actions, or human aggression. however, you might be able to cure many types of cancer, curb the spread of AIDS, eradicate disease like TB, and solve other medical problems.</p>
<p>
You’ve got to be kidding me. Ah, whatever. I will attribute it to your lack of knowledge of science and medicine.</p>
<p>I would say the social sciences are more complex to study because you deal with human beings, which gives rise to special problems. But I don’t think its necessarily harder; for me, the natural sciences are harder because understanding the equations are sometimes so grotesque that because I’m a very attentive person, I literally choose not to just accept the formula, I do more, I try to internalize it and understand it wholeheartedly in a way that I can use on my own, and divert from the book. So that’s pretty hard too. The level of thinking in the two sciences are reflective of each other and not competitive. I guess it’s like comparing apples and oranges. You’ll have a comparison, but its inaccurate because the comparison is relative between the two, yet inquire a similar amount of thinking, hence the fruit.</p>
<p>At the undergraduate level, the natural sciences are harder than the social sciences for sure. At the Ivies at least, the social sciences tend to be grade inflated and full of the “average” students relative to the science and mathematics classes. Plus, stuff like mathematics and physics is just far more rigorous and requires “leaps” of insights just to solve problems as opposed to the most rigorous social science - Economics. There’s also that paradox that mathematically and scientifically inclined people can also be good at the social sciences and humanities, but not really vice-versa. Let’s face it, at the undergraduate level, something like Psychology just isn’t as rigorous, and the social sciences are an easy way out if you’re looking just to graduate at an Ivy.</p>
<p>I say this all as a prospective Econ major.</p>
<p>Maybe the education is harder for those going into natural sciences but as disciplines, the social sciences are still harder.</p>
<p>Big bro, psychology is a weak comparison to use, more like political science/law and society in constitutional situations, human rights, war, et cetera is better to compare.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not have any personal experiences or proof for this statement, but I highly doubt that this is true. After all, if the social sciences are really harder, why aren’t they at least more challenging than science/mathematics at the undergraduate level? Is there some steep learning curve that we’re all missing out on late in one’s PhD career?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, psychology is just but one arbitrary example. Regardless, the natural sciences are still more difficult than political science et. al at the undergraduate level.</p>