I believe that the “hard” sciences are much much easier than any soft science, which is one reason they have progressed so far. When you are arguing with a presumably objective reality, one party remains rational.
Hard sciences are seen as harder due to university systems, and nothing to do with actual genuine difficulty of the science.
Soft sciences are much harder to tease out fact from fiction, and your discoveries often modify reality so even your facts actually change (macro economics). Also for a lot of soft sciences, there are a lot of facts that don’t have to make sense (path dependencies for phenotypes of random mutations).
I believe that the “hard” sciences are much much easier than any soft science, which is one reason they have progressed so far. When you are arguing with a presumably objective reality, one party remains rational.
Hard sciences are seen as harder due to university systems, and nothing to do with actual genuine difficulty of the science.
Soft sciences are much harder to tease out fact from fiction, and your discoveries often modify reality so even your facts actually change (macro economics). Also for a lot of soft sciences, there are a lot of facts that don’t have to make sense (path dependencies for phenotypes of random mutations).