<p>Biology, Chemistry, Physics >>> Poli Sci, Psych, Sociology.</p>
<p>Physics and Chemistry stand far above any social science (except, perhaps, Economics) in difficulty at virtually any rung on the educational ladder (undergrad, MS, PhD, or pure research).</p>
<p>Quantum Mechanics ftw!!!1111one!!!11one1</p>
<p>As I said, they are harder to grasp. But keep in mind, the things/concepts/interesting ideas learned in the social sciences or humanities heavily shape your mind because you are dealing with reality and human beings. The same way with natural sciences, but you get to learn how things operate/function. Both are equally interesting, IMO.</p>
<p>While there are obvious exceptions to the rules, I think in general the social sciences allow for a lot more smoosh room, where you can sorta BS stuff in a way. People will present 10 different ways to end violence. Often times you cannot test many of these methods on a large scale.</p>
<p>The natural science, biology, chemistry and physics are all much more rigorous, as they follow the scientific method. Also, the thinking is much more abstract. Take for example, general relativity or quantum electrodynamics. You can’t just sit there and imagine these things. It takes a lot of sincerely difficult mathematics to develop the ideas, and then very precise experimentation to test the theory. That is why Maxwell is so famous, because he understood that mathematics is a language that can predict. This is what allowed him to append his extra term to Faraday’s Law of Induction by arguing for symmetry. Feynman elegantly expressed how little fudging room there is when he said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong."</p>
<p>I think also that it’s a bad idea to compare problems like “trying to end violence” vs “trying to defeat cancer.” Yes they are both very hard problems, but the first is not easily testable, whereas the second is rigorous, and progress can be made in increments. So where people will eventually start ignoring the guy who spends years dreaming up schemes to end violence, or proposing one un-testable idea after another, or ones that require massive social reengineering, the scientist will show over a number of years small but testably correct increments in solving the problem.</p>
<p>Another thing is that in the social sciences, small perturbations lead to chaos. Hence why you can never make formulas or predictions that pinpoint social phenomenon down to +/- a very small percentage of average behavior. This is also why the social sciences merely help explain phenomenon. Since there is so much room for uncertainty in the social sciences, there is no need for us to phrase the predictions in terms of some rigorous and precisely detailed axiomatic system like mathematics, which people find abstract and difficult</p>
<p>To Differential: In my previous posts, I explained that the scientific method <em>is</em> an essential part of the social sciences. This is part of the reason why the social sciences are difficult-- because you’re testing an independent variable within the context of the real world (you have ecological validity issues to worry about because of other factors that may interfere with the results). Through this method, you <em>can</em> come up with and test solutions that propose to reduce the risk of the occurrence of certain social problems. For example, studies have shown that the D.A.R.E. program is ineffective, thus forcing educators to come up with some other drug prevention programs. They might use other studies to find out what factors are essential to include in an intervention program (perhaps changes to the school climate is required in addition to the presence of other factors).</p>
<p>Have you ever read a sociology journal article? Browse through a sociology journal, and you will find that any article based on a study will have a hypothesis, testing method, data, conclusions, and implications. Sociological studies <em>are</em> rigorous. I’m disappointed that you didn’t know such studies are based on the scientific method (hence the name social science).</p>
<p>differential, good analogy, but when you say the thinking is much more abstract, I tend to disagree. I think the thinking is reflective of the social sciences/humanities, vice versa. I don’t think any of the sciences are much harder than the other. All science is one. You are given equations and formulas to guide your thinking in those sciences. Whereas in social sciences or humanities, you have to do the thinking on your own. There are already predestined equations or formulas for you to begin following, no matter how hard they may be, they still guide you in your thinking. The names are self-explanatory too. Natural sciences, you are dealing with naturalism, what has been pretty much deemed intangible, just learn it. Social sciences, the socializing aspect of it is so riveting. Mastering a language and becoming extremely persuasive is not at all common. Natural sciences are more mechanical, and the thinking is definitely longer. The social sciences are more conceptual, and the thinking is shorter. To make up for the longer thinking in the natural sciences where the answer is absolute, loopholes or simple transitive vs. intransitive words invite different ideas to counter an argument or even supplement it greater, within context. This is real interesting in my opinion because you’re not going 1, 2, 3, as in the naturals, but more like, 1, b, 3, d. Not as straightforward and objective as in the naturals, but more complex and in fact creative.</p>
<p>Another thing is “how generalizable” is the model/theory you construct? The models constructed within the social sciences are only generalizable to human beings in a particular place at a particular time. Meanwhile, the models constructed within the natural sciences are generalizable to entities beyond the Earth. </p>
<p>Also - consider that philosophy was the root of ALL of the sciences (social + natural) and of mathematics. This may have changed though, as some of the newer sciences (generative sciences, chaos theory, neurobiology) are offshoots of more ancient forms of the sciences. </p>
<p>I think that those who practice the “natural sciences” often try to remove the human element from them. But this tends to hurt hypothesis generation. Research papers often only report the results (and some of the previous problems that led to the question - but they don’t report the “process of hypothesis generation” that leads to the model). And hypothesis generation is highly related to the cognitive sciences (although mathematicians already recognize the power of the subconsciousness - in fact, Polya addresses a section entirely to it).</p>
<p>By the way - there are currently changes in the way we distinguish between the natural and social sciences. Mathematical modeling is often applied to the social sciences - without forcing them to be reduced to more “fundamental” natural sciences. One could also draw a distinction between the behavioral and the physical sciences - a distinction that Herbert Gintis notes in his review of a partiular book. The behavioral sciences can be modeled by means of mathematical modeling, but reducing them to microscopic entities is impossible due to the fact that small perturbations in initial conditions lead to chaos (unless we know the position of each and every particle at every point of time, which is impossible). Of course those small perturbations are usually averaged out on macroscopic large scale models. We also have to consider the role of the generative sciences - which branch off from applied mathematics</p>
<p>There are some interesting books on this. E.O. Wilson’s Consilience to start, and “On Unity” by Herbert Gintis. Also try “Quark and Jaguar” by Murray Gell-Mann</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.umass.edu/preferen/gintis/TowardsUnity.pdf[/url]”>http://www.umass.edu/preferen/gintis/TowardsUnity.pdf</a></p>
<p>==</p>
<p>So basically, the social sciences used to be easier than the natural sciences. Why? Because you don’t need to know all sorts of abstract mathematics to make predictions on the social sciences - you just have to rely on observation and the tools that your human instincts have given you (and yes, social skills are instinctively developed - take away the social instincts and you get autism). General rules of thumb (folk psychology) help predict human behavior on the micro level, and we can still use the scientific method on the behavior of human populations on the macro level. Nonetheless, we could use more rigorous mathematical models to further enlighten us on the social sciences. But the calculations are so complex that we have to rely on computers for those.It then become a question of model generation.But since there is no closed-form definite solution, you can only approximate behavior, and there are only “better” or “worse” degrees of approximation, no absolutes like there are in math/physics.</p>
<p>And of course there are subcategories within the natural sciences, with varying degrees of rigor. Medical research, for example, still largely relies on trial and error. Find new drug, test on animals, test on humans. We don’t have much foresight on which drugs will work better than others - perhaps since we still don’t know too much about the human body yet. Meanwhile, this “trial and error” also happens in many other areas of the natural sciences - like weather forecasting. This is a battle of the models, so to speak. </p>
<p>But anyhow - in terms of the natural sciences- we can isolate all elements of the system, so to speak (or assume that the many elements are homogeneous, making our model simplifiable). But when it comes to the macroscopic sciences like the social + biological + behavioral sciences + weather forecasting, we can then only rely on trial and error and the “battle of the best model”. Experimentation wrt models, in a sense. This is not done in theoretical physics (where the existence of particles were predicted BEFORE they were discovered) or mathematics (where you can’t observe anything). Or some branches of chemistry as well (you can reduce chemicals of atoms and molecules, and predict elemental properties BEFORE discovering the elements). This effectively makes reductionism effective in those fields. Such is NOT the case for the more macroscopic sciences, which MUST be analyzed via other trial and error means, due to the inherent complexity within.</p>
<p>This debate usually ends with the social science people winning the argument, because the natural science people have to walk away since they have to submit another homework in half an hour.</p>
<p>Both natural sciences/mathematics and social sciences can be very difficult, depending upon the specific topic and level of study. That being said, I don’t agree with those of you who say that natural sciences/mathematics are always more difficult than the social sciences. Try telling that to someone who has gone to law school or gotten their doctorate in economics. I would also make the same point when it comes to writing ability and the proper use of the English language. I’ve met natural science and math majors who are very bright, talented people, but who can’t write a cogent paragraph to save their lives.</p>
<p>To be short…</p>
<p>Most people aren’t particularly talented. If your intelligence isn’t above the 90th percentile, then you’re effectively useless for natural science research.</p>
<p>However, the curve is lower for the social sciences. It takes less talent to do social science research or to understand social science at the minimum level than it is to research or understand natural science, however, at the highest levels of research, you really can’t compare the two.</p>
<p>I’m talking about the disciplines’ inherent level of difficulty, not whether or not the human brain processes certain disciplines easier. Now, the difficulty level of the social sciences vs. the natural sciences as judged by us will probably depend on both, just because it’s hard to disentangle the two.</p>
<p>But inherent level of difficulty is dependent upon the human brain. You can’t have a definition of difficulty without invoking the human brain and its associated properties</p>
<p>Yeah, it’s impossible to disentangle the two. Our understanding of the social sciences is made easier by our social instincts, but we must be careful not to be too trusting of common sense. However, for people with autism, it’s harder to grasp the social sciences-- and this is why we can’t just say the natural sciences are <em>always</em> harder; just because most people find the natural sciences harder doesn’t mean that they’re definitively harder.</p>
<p>Social science, at the actual research level, has become incredibly quantitative in North America. Few non-social scientists realize that the best economists and political scientists are usually math stars. I had to submit to over a year of calc, stats, and econometrics to get my BA and MA. I know that it’s far more for the PhD.</p>
<p>Oh, and earlier in the thread someone mentioned that people respect MDs more than PhDs in sociology. This is true. Then again, people also respect firemen more than accountants. It doesn’t mean that they’re any more or less decent lines of work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>InquilineKea has Asperger’s Syndrome. He is pretty ballin’ at t3h social sciences. 
Read below post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say that the social sciences are harder for those with autism - though they may be more hard-pressed to find suitable hypotheses concerning human nature. But the suitable hypotheses are already there for them - so they can learn them consciously. In fact - the scientific method for the social sciences makes it much easier for those with autism to understand human nature (in fact since their intuitions don’t conflict with the science, they sometimes are superior in understanding human nature than non-autistics if they choose to study human nature from the scientific method). Temple Grandin labels it “the anthropologist from Mars” - it’s easier to view humans objectively by looking at the humans as an “alien”</p>
<p>In the beginning stages of fields like psychology, we rely on folk psychology and folk physics to form our theories. Later on, however, we no longer rely on folk psychology/folk physics; rather, we rely on the previous research</p>
<p>
That is correct, and that is why autistic people tend to have an easier time being objective about human behavior. However, the natural sciences are still easier for them <em>relative</em> to social sciences. This is why the vast majority of autistic people who are academically competent major in the natural sciences.</p>