Which of these soft sciences can be turned into hard sciences? Which are unsalvageable?

Physiological psychology (biopsychology) is a hard science. Sensation and perception, behavioural responses to emotional stimuli, abnormal psychology(-ish) are within the hard sciences.

Computer science varies depending on what you focus on.

You can study computer science and never touch anything scientific. You're essentially a subset of an engineering course with a focus on software. Or, you can actually focus your studies on scientific research and a more theoretical side of computer science.

sociology is on it's way. It's important we distinguish between real sociology and sociology done by women and people of colour

Psychology is the worst. Some of it is science, but literally 99% of papers are bullshit no one even reads.

climatology is a hard science, it's a subset of geochemistry/environmental science
psychology and sociology will be made hard eventually but you can't just force it

Feminist Glaciology

Microeconomics is autistic funtimes with sterile abstractions
Macroeconomics is unfalsifiable, unpredictive nonsense

...if we're being generous. If we're being honest, every single macroeconomic framework to ever have a public policy heyday has been falsified one after another, partially because of the nature of the field and the impossibility of carrying out a well-designed, controlled experiment (which limits us to pure inference rather than predictive modeling,) and partially because macroeconomics is a deeply ideological thing taking "uncritically defend bourgeois rule" as its jumping off point.

Merely using math to be precise about what exactly your theory claims and having sophisticated, mathematically rigorous ways of generating your untestable inferences doesn't make it a science. The crucial difference is the possibility of experiment.

>Everything needs to be studied the same way as natural science, or else it's not a """""""real""""""" science.
This board is so goddamn stupid.

Attached: 1513067679808.png (836x1136, 297K)

I love the fact that you stopped shitposting walls of text because you realized your "arguments" against CS were uneducated trash.

Attached: lmao.jpg (368x349, 34K)

>implying I'm a CS major
I study Physics. I just hate this culture of subject elitism.

>t. /g/tard

Attached: CS viewpoint.png (898x374, 273K)

It's not elitism, CS education is terrible. Especially in every American university.

>climatology is a hard science
no it isn't because there are to many variables impossible to control for, it's the same issue that plagues economics

>were uneducated trash

Not an argument.

CS, linguistics, and econ are already partly hard sciences. All of them can be, given enough time and thought.

>look at these graphs wow so education

Attached: XDDDDDDDDDD.png (640x400, 10K)

And how would you know that? CS majors at actually good universities seem to be getting good jobs and research positions.

this chart is pretty accurate desu. biology gets immensely more complex the more you learn it while math stays about the same and physics gets easier.

>trust me, I have PhDs in math, physics and biology
Show them, Mr. 250+ IQ.

Attached: brainlet39.png (488x463, 28K)

>seem to be getting good jobs

Nobody is ever talking about muh jerbs. It's always about the curriculum.

Attached: cs discrete math.png (2738x1749, 1.79M)

>t. triggered cs major

Did saying "calculus is easy" bring back bad memories of repeatedly failing it?

Attached: CS calculus.png (568x161, 9K)

What exactly are your qualms with macro compared with micro? The premises are the same and everything follows from those, or are you talking about generalizing apparent empirical relations into laws? That's always done with a grain of salt and when that relation ceases to exist the laws are updated or abandoned if not salvageable

Evolutionary psychology can potentially turn psychology into a hard science.

>Anything that needs to call itself a science isn't really worthy of the name "science"

God damn I love some of my assholish professors

>natural sciences aren't science

Tell that to atmospheric Chemists. Psychology is a soft science because it's methods are ad hoc. In climate science you can extract meaning from chemical reactions, Arrhenius predicted that increased carbon dioxide levels would greatly influence the heat budget of the planet. Meanwhile Freud wanted to fuck his mother so you do to.

I have a PhD in biophysics.

>physical science isn't a science

I said economics not psychology you mongoloid

Computer science is a form of engineering and not a science.

I was giving an example of why a soft science is soft. Nice argument though.

t. butthurt psych major

Yes, sour grape cucks like you are.

Oh, most certainly not, my fellow physicist. I a much able to understand epsilon-delta proofs without resorting to super-duper thin variations of x.

So neither biology nor physics.

Not that user but biophysics Ph.D's do require you to take grad level physics and biology courses. Plus you interact with pure physics and biology grad students on a regular basis, I have a feeling you could get a better feel then most about how the difficulty ramps for different Ph.D's.

>tfw my own linguistics have gotten so edgy and good it scares me sometimes

Attached: EB671F66-2EDD-4FE6-AE65-18FE8057085D.gif (320x287, 982K)

climatology is not even a real science