Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[Omnibus]

OK, substitute 'soft sciences' by 'court of law'. Same thing. I just wanted to stated it more generally.

[Omnibus]

When Sister Mary alice gets back, your both gonna get the ruler across the knuckle treatment!,and maybe the old Adhomiwhip across the buttocks!
She's gonna have some sledgeucatin for the two of you!

@ramst,

You scared me out of my wits. What shall I do now?

[WilbyInebriated]

OK, substitute 'soft sciences' by 'court of law'. Same thing. I just wanted to stated it more generally.

omni, i understand what a 'soft science' is. the logic used by the soft science and the hard science are the same... ie: they both use inductive and deductive reasoning.  your ridiculous stance is that they do not. this is evidenced by the record over and over and over. now, if you continue to support your stance that the "soft sciences" do not use inductive or deductive reasoning in logic then please show and define what type of logic is being used...

[Omnibus]

No the logic used isn't the same. Inductive reasoning, uniqueness of truth regarding one phenomenon is strongly discouraged in soft sciences. On the contrary, hard sciences rely on inductive reasoning -- one good experiment is enough to conclude about the outcome of the same experiment under the same conditions any where in the world, any time. Uniqueness of truth is a given. Truth is a dictator. And so on and so forth. There are huge differences between the application of logic in the sofe as opposed to hard sciences let alone that for hard sciences there are no topics taboo. Soft sciences are wrought with taboos. Differences are huge, form an intellectual perspective. That's onviously news to you but, hey, that the use for these discussion, to learn something new sometimes.

[WilbyInebriated]

No the logic used isn't the same. Inductive reasoning, uniqueness of truth regarding one phenomenon is strongly discouraged in soft sciences. On the contrary, hard sciences rely on inductive reasoning -- one good experiment is enough to conclude about the outcome of the same experiment under the same conditions any where in the world, any time. Uniqueness of truth is a given. Truth is a dictator. And so on and so forth. There are huge differences between the application of logic in the sofe as opposed to hard sciences let alone that for hard sciences there are no topics taboo. Soft sciences are wrought with taboos. Differences are huge, form an intellectual perspective. That's onviously news to you but, hey, that the use for these discussion, to learn something new sometimes.

tu stultus es... q.e.d.

logic is the study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. the methods of valid inference and correct reasoning are inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning... the soft sciences use both (regardless of which one is discouraged) and the hard sciences use both (regardless of which one is discouraged)... therefore the logic is the same. there is no "different" logic.

the only thing i have learned from you omni, is that you have nothing to teach me at all...

as an aside, if there are no taboos in hard science why is you have such trouble convincing people of the CoE violation you constantly pimp? and i think you may have meant to say the soft sciences are fraught with taboos... to say they are wrought with them sounds a little stultus...