Dear Marcel,

interesting question. I think as a first idea, the definition of "exact" science is problematic. I follow as physicist these conventionally exact sciences, and my impression is, no social consense will be necessary for acceptance of our results, but consense is needed for financial and sociological aspects.

Dear Marcel,

interesting question. I think as a first idea, the definition of "exact" science is problematic. I follow as physicist these conventionally exact sciences, and my impression is, no social consense will be necessary for acceptance of our results, but consense is needed for financial and sociological aspects.

Unfortunately dear Marcel,  the answer is likely yes ... Witness fads in science, which tend to dominate the scientific narratives for years before they may fade away, and the fact that, as Robert Laughlin says in his book 'A Different Universe', some scientific facts are better left unsaid. In an ideal world this wouldn't be the case, but there it is.

Dear  Marcel M. Lambrechts ,

I find interesting article and sent you.

https://mthoyibi.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/qualitative-research-practice_a-guide-for-social-science-students-and-researchers_jane-ritchie-and-jane-lewis-eds_20031.pdf

http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm?txtRef=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egoogle%2Eaz%2F&txtURIOld=%2Ftools%2Fsfaaol%2Fchap1%2Ehtm

Regards, Shafagat

This is a good question with lots of possible answers.  

In addition, to the incisive answers already given, a good overview of the exact sciences is given in

H. Rosario, Epistemology of the Exact Science(s): Mathematical Knowledge vis-à-vis Spiritual Knowledge, 2008:

http://www.dandavats.com/wp-content/uploads/04_hector_rosario_vol_3.pdf 

See Section 2, page 12, for a definition of exact science.

A thorough investigation of the exactness question is given in

http://dspace.uni.lodz.pl:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11089/688/71-86.pdf?sequence=1

See, for example, page 74:  exact sciences provides clear rules for investigation that do not allow any subtle changes in meaning.

Dear Marcel,

Dear All,

I think that merely natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften) are exact sciences. All the others can be considered as mixed sciences (?) or pseudo sciences that are regarded as sciences in lack of a better expression.

Dear Hanno,

The word exact may be considered as a demand to use also mathematical aspects in these scientific fields or an approach to control subjectivity.

Biological science has a difficulty for exactness, because a biological setting is causally rich, meaning the effect observed can be influenced by conditions, including unidentified and unsuspected conditions. Nevertheless, biological science is much more exact than social sciences. Social science has the added complication of interpretation of results under the influence of social consensus and investigator bias. Social consensus and investigator bias can influence physics, but the exacting nature of physics experiments and ability to control conditions provide a high degree of insulation.

  Dear Marcel, I think that exact science can be considered as synonym of the "hard science" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hard+science in contratry to soft science. For the hard science one also must consider opinion of "soft science". This will help to get financial supports, grants etc. In many grants applications one have to mention link of your "hard science" with soceity: ea. how the results of your investigation contribute to society development. Intersting, that there is a company "Exact science"! http://www.exactsciences.com/

Dear Marcel,

What do you mean on social consensus? Is there scientific social consensus? What is the difference between scientific consensus and social consensus?

Dear Marcel,

What do you think what kind of perception is more reliable or more humanly acceptable: direct perception by a human observer or measured data through very developed appliances needing multiple abstractions?

Indirect perception via machines result from direct perception of those that built the machines, or not? There is certainly scientific/social consensus concerning what kind of machine should be build, or not? The machine will differ depending on those that joined the negotiation, or not?

Dear all,

my next problem is to understand what scientific consensus (in the exact sciences) should be. Do you mean correctness, reproducability, having used accepted techniques and methods. All these parameters are crafts at leat in the "exat sciences". So scientific results cannot emerge if you don´t oby the rules.

Social consensus is social and not scientific. That means that layman must accept it. Thats a total difference to exact science. It has a smell of politics, adaption, vogue.

So dear Marcel, I dont accept your classification of exact sciences as a subgroup of social sciences and social consensus.

Politicians/governments/rich people will be the financers of extremely expensive equipment and therefore will influence the research directions, or not? How to reach scientific consensus to get social consensus involving non-specialists?

M. Tatcher in search of the Higgs boson (e.g. J. Baggott 2012. Higgs. The invention and discovery of the 'God particle', Oxford University Press)

Dear Arno, good example. The old fashioned scientist lost the scientifif !! Acceptance. No problem. Thats life. But all these scientist in physics, math etc worked following the accepted rules. 

Dear Marcel,

What do you consider, whether is RG scoring of a comment a “social consensus” made on the basis of exact reflection or a “social consensus” due to - (un)willing - subjective mind patterns?

Dear Marcel,

You forget the mistakes of multiple abstractions as a result of direct perception of indirect machinery reflexions.

Often not those perceive the machines’ information, who created them.

At first one should know, what is the difference between the scientific and social perception. This is difficult to accept because the exactness itself is undecided at least in this thread. .

Dear Marcel,

Dear All,

“Ei ist Ei – sagte jener und nahm das grösste. “ Egg is egg said one and took the biggest one. This is a saying of Kurt Tucholsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Tucholsky

Is it a plain social consensus or a subjective reflexion of traditional social consensus through direct perception? What is the general and the specific – for this tread – morality of this saying?

Collateral question: is it possible to compare eggs by indirect perception? Would it be an exact approach compared with the direct perception?

In my view, an "exact" science does not belong to the social sciences. This view does not underestimate the value of research, done in these areas, which approaches better understanding of social aspects under many intricate complex variables related to the human nature.

It is very difficult to count upon social consensus in accepting a hypothesis or validating a theory since the social components are generally  under-educated, easily  driven towards bias, misinformed,  susceptible to cheating, and could be attracted towards chaos.

Dear Marcel,

I dont agree. If you investigate the system of nuclear or atomic shell states you don´t need some social aspects. You see here a typical example of exact science.

Science itself is a social activity since we need peer review so that consensus within the scientific community is achieved. This previous sentence is filled with terms belonging to the field of study of the social sciences. In addition, most science disciplines cannot be reduced to abstract theorems because they deal with one or another  aspect of perceiving reality which may be biased by the senses, upbringing, scientific depth, etc. The quest for science is to eliminate these subjective parameters by consensus. It is this activity which is a field of study for the social science. But I would draw the distinction between the phenomenon of study from the techniques used to study the phenomenon.

Just my biased opinion...

Dear Marcel,

ok, you need the money. But the scientific method and result dosn´t depend on the donator. Otherwise it would be no science at all. It´s prostitution.

Dear Marcel,

sell your work, but dont change or adopt results.

Dear Marcel,

Science, as a whole, is a social phenomenon since it is based on a belief that arises based on a consensus, a belief to which arrives by conviction or reasoning. The distinction between natural sciences, hard sciences, and humanities and social sciences, is given by the existence or not, of an experimental method to verify a theory.

If results have to be 'sold' to be socially successful, the basic mechanism will be the judgement filter of people that are a bit less specialized than the team that produced the results, which may be politicians or scientists belonging to commissions that have to judge the contents of a wide range of topics (e.g. university commissions, financial commissions, editors, referees judging model systems on which they don't work....)? 

Marcel

Society may influence questions that scientists ask. The approach to science in the world community may vary across cultures and ideas may be culturally based. This does not place exact sciences in the realm of social sciences. Companies, governments, and organization may fund exact sciences for their social purposes and thus, influence questions asked and answers accepted. This does not place exact sciences in the realm of social sciences. 

As a further example of such cases - and as an answer of sorts to whoever voted down my previous entry - museums worldwide threw out their meteorite collections in the 18th century after the French Academy of Sciences decreed that "stones do not fall out of the sky". In medicine, fashions and fads have set back certain developments by decades.... the list is long.