Talk:Exact sciences

Problems with definition

The content of thiis article has no widely agreed acceptance as to any scholarly uses. Therefore I have tagged it to warn the unwary reader, unless and until scholarly citations can be provided along with justification for using "exact science" to apply to anything as broad as, say, the natural sciences and formal science...Kenosis 21:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

to me the term reads like "scientific science". bah.. --Fs 23:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be removed, or fixed on account of a couple points: Science is never (so far) exact, as per uncertianty principle. Fields with "better approximations" do not count as exact in virtue of thier better approximations. I do not think mathematics counts as a science as it is primarily deductive in nature as opposed to the inductive methods characteristic of science. Nor is mathematics what many would call "emperical". JTM Aug 10, 2006

it's a widely used term, it doesn't have to be accurate... 88.153.12.55 15:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and you seldom, if ever, hear a professional scientist use the term. But it has a well-established use in the common namespace. There are, in fact, specific reasons for it, and the article expains the most important ones quite clearly. There is no need to dispute this.

And, by the way, the uncertainty in quantum mechanics does not make it any more or any less "exact". Neither does experimental variance. In fact, these are the very signs of "exactness" in the natural sciences. To know, and recognize the limitations of current knowledge. Ulcph 21:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Tried to make sense of it, given that the term is widely used (outside of science), and that the dictionary definitions, to the effect of "using mathematics", have long been considered inadequate. Ulcph 00:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite Ulcph's hard work on this page, I think readers are much better served with a brief, hopefully even-handed discussion of the term and its usage, and a link to the real article on the topic (Demarcation problem). Discussion welcome, of course. —Yours in good faith, Jorend 15:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:63.225.44.197 deleted a few sentences. I reverted them because I think the user is pushing a point of view. See the user's contributions to hard science. --Jorend 20:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "Today the distinction is widely considered old-fashioned" needs references. Who regards the distinction between the rigour of (say) physics and the lack of rigour of (say) economy as old fashioned? Has economy suddenly become as rigorous as physics? --- Peter, 12:32, 26 April 2007 (BST)

Astronomy seems "exact" but then someone finds out something new and the theory has to be bent to accommodate it. Evolution is a science, but, worse and more often than astronomy, someone discovers something new and says, "Well, since it is this (new) way, therefore the new way must be more survivable than the old." On one hand, practitioners are pragmatic. On the other, there is only a high level principal that survives (survival of the fittest). The lower ones are changed every year. Worse than economics! Student7 (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

An editor has placed "astronomy" as "exact." With branes, and dark matter and dark energy clouding the field, astronomy seems anything but "exact." It doesn't even seem approximate!

While astrology seems exacting, horoscopes cast by different people are often dissimilar, therefore the science is only "partly exact" IMO. Also the phrase "astrology is an exact science" seems a bit oxymoronic. Oh well! Student7 (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Social sciences?

Someone has removed astrology which is a relief. They are supposed have "exact" rules for prediction, but then all arrive at different conclusions! We probably need some WP:RELY footnotes for what goes in here. Doing it off the top of our heads seems to be a "bit" sloppy, WP:POV and more than just a little WP:OR.

Ad editor added "social sciences" although some took umbrage to the original definition as a cheap shot at social science! Maybe we should be defining the "part" of social science and psychology that is "exact." I guess Pavlovian response is more or less "exact", right? Maybe subsections can list the "exact" portion? Student7 (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)