Soft Sciences Vs. Hard Sciences

[teo123]

Have you ever heard the albatross joke?

No, I don't know what you're talking about.

Ok, so there's this guy called Harold, and he's going on holiday with his wife Bertha. They both get on a plane and then halfway through their flight, the plane starts crashing. It ends up crashing on a desert island, and only three people survive: Harold, Bertha and another man called Kevin. Bertha is seriously injured. Harold and Kevin go and look around the island do see if there is anything which can be used for food, however, they don't find anything. Eventually, they get tired, so they go back to where Bertha is, and then they go to sleep. When Harold wakes up, a delicious smell fills his nostrils. He can't see Bertha or Kevin, so he follows the smell. He finds Kevin cooking some soup over a fire. Kevin informs him that he has good news and bad news. The bad news is that Bertha died during the night. The good news is that he caught an albatross and he was now cooking albatross soup. Harold is distraught that his wife is dead, however Kevin consoles him by feeding him some of the albatross soup. It is delicious. Very soon, they are rescued from the island. Three years later, Harold is at a restaurant and he sees that albatross soup is on the menu. He remembers how he ate albatross soup on the island, and he decides to order it. It now tastes very different.

Do you understand what I am talking about now?

A bit of a dark humour, but I still don't see how it relates to the topic.

[teo123]

It's hard to observe incorrectly a number on a screen despite biases.

Well, I don't think biases are exactly the biggest problem.
For example, in my computer science paper that's about to get published in Osje?ki Matemati?ki List, I did some measurements that appeared to show that the basic premise my algorithm was based on, that is, that QuickSort is faster than MergeSort on randomly shuffled arrays, is false. Namely, my algorithm used QuickSort when the sortedness is near zero, and MergeSort when it's far from 0. The problem was, as I found out months after I submitted the paper, is that I implemented QuickSort vastly suboptimally, while I implemented MergeSort close-to-optimal. Well, that's not the problem with my bias, is it? I expected exactly the opposite result, I expected my algorithm to be faster than MergeSort when the array is randomly shuffled, rather than slower than it.
When I implemented a more-mainstream version of QuickSort (not the one I made up based on the few things I've read about it), I got very different results.
I don't know if I should revoke my paper. The last thing I need is something which will destroy my self-confidence. And I need self-confidence to do well when studying at the university, don't I?

[Not The Real JReg]

A bit of a dark humour, but I still don't see how it relates to the topic.

I don't see how it doesn't relate to the topic.

Well, I don't think biases are exactly the biggest problem.
For example, in my computer science paper that's about to get published in Osje?ki Matemati?ki List, I did some measurements that appeared to show that the basic premise my algorithm was based on, that is, that QuickSort is faster than MergeSort on randomly shuffled arrays, is false. Namely, my algorithm used QuickSort when the sortedness is near zero, and MergeSort when it's far from 0. The problem was, as I found out months after I submitted the paper, is that I implemented QuickSort vastly suboptimally, while I implemented MergeSort close-to-optimal. Well, that's not the problem with my bias, is it? I expected exactly the opposite result, I expected my algorithm to be faster than MergeSort when the array is randomly shuffled, rather than slower than it.
When I implemented a more-mainstream version of QuickSort (not the one I made up based on the few things I've read about it), I got very different results.
I don't know if I should revoke my paper. The last thing I need is something which will destroy my self-confidence. And I need self-confidence to do well when studying at the university, don't I?

When we were on death's door, when we were needy, we made a promise, we signed a treaty. We needed money and guns and half a chance. Uhh, who provided those funds? France. In return, they didn't ask for land. Only a promise that we'd lend a hand and stand with them if they fought against oppressors and revolution is messy but now is the time to stand. Stand with our brothers as they fight against tyranny. I know that @Red is here and he would rather not have this debate. I'll remind you that he is not Secretary of State. He knows nothing of loyalty. Smells like new money, dresses like fake royalty. Desperate to rise above his station. Everything he does betrays the ideals of our nation. Hey, and if ya don't know, now you know, Teo.

[teo123]

In case somebody is interested, I brought up the question about whether historical linguistics is a real science on Quora: https://www.quora.com/q/smg/Since-Karl- ... inguistics

[teo123]

What do you think, why it is that people from hard sciences who step into linguistics support wild speculation? For example, the physicist Murray Gell-Mann wrote a paper making guesses about syntax of the first human language, something the vast majority of linguists think is impossible, and for obvious reason. Do you think he is simply an outlier?

[teo123]

Apparently, there are quite a few people on Quora who think the distinction between hard science and soft science is not important: https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-good-re ... opology-to