What does the debate over the hard/soft dichotomy often dissolve into, according to some scientists?
Answer
A philosophical argument about the inherent difficulty of a subject.
Many scientists view the debate as unproductive because it frequently turns into a subjective argument over which field is inherently harder or more complex, rather than focusing on objective scientific merit.
Related Questions
On what methodological differences does the historical division between hard and soft sciences generally hinge?According to the methodology comparison table, what is Astronomy's primary methodology?Which characteristic is frequently noted about conclusions reached in soft sciences?What makes the classification of astronomy particularly interesting regarding its laboratory environment?What provides the strongest argument for classifying astronomy as a hard science?What is the main reason critics cite against astronomy's hard science status?What does the debate over the hard/soft dichotomy often dissolve into, according to some scientists?Approximately when did the terms 'hard' and 'soft' science emerge?In many national grant systems, under which general category is astronomy typically funded?What distinction does the text suggest is more core than 'hard' versus 'soft' when evaluating fields like astronomy?