I actually think you're talking cross-purposes? But yes, I agree with @Julie_B92 that hard vs soft is extremely damaging and bad rhetoric.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @waterlego and
If hard vs soft was purely about level of analysis/abstraction then replacing it with top vs bottom (top-down, bottom-up analyses etc) would
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @waterlego and
suffice... but it doesn't because hard vs soft is weaponised to delineate real (physics etc) vs not (psych etc) science.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @waterlego and
And this real vs not distinction is damaging, in the same way hard vs soft is, for the reasons already mentioned.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @waterlego and
So yes, level of analysis thinking is very useful (e.g., Marr etc) https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/IB_Psychology/Levels_of_Analysis …
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @waterlego and
and also used in many fields, in compsci it's usually referred to as level of abstraction. http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/46045/level-of-abstraction …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
But seriously? Nobody actually think 1% this deeply about these concepts and definitely not typical and/or lay people who use soft vs hard.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.