Thought Travels

The human body of knowledge can be broken into the : 'Hard Sciences' and Social sciences (including humanities).

One simple way of diffrentiating them is : hard sciences are those where we can predict phenomenons based on proven models. Examples are mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering etc. Social sciences/humanities are where we can perhaps hope to get a 'broad set of rules', however it does not have the same precise predicability. Like economics, psychology, medicine, geology, sociology, philosophy etc. (add music, art, literature)

In today's world, I believe there exists some lack of respect for social sciences and humanities.

This lack of respect has the broadly the following reasons :

Accuracy : The Hard sciences are perceived to be more 'true'or 'objective'. In humanities and social sciences, often, nothing 'definitive' can be said. The best and true answer is often a 'Maybe'.
Consider this :

1. If prices go down will consumption increase? Yes as a general rule. No, in the case of 'Giffen goods'

2. Does the 'pavlov conditioning' a conclusive model of learning ? Yes as a general rule. No as other models can also explain learning

It is not to say that the social sciences/humanities have absolutely no mathematical foundations. Rules of social sciences and humanities are based logical evidence. Perhaps the ambiguity can be attributed to a large number of variables affecting observed phenomenon. This makes it almost impossible to get a precise predictive model nailed down.
For example, economists have been using the value-maximising rational man as a base to predict economic phenomenon. However only recently we have been observing how much 'behaviour/psychology' affect economic choices. We perhaps cannot summarise subjective variables like 'behaviour' to numbers. Neither can we ever hope to do so. Because behaviour is not static and continues to evolve.

As an aside, the brilliant conception of such a fantasy super-science is found in Assimov's classic Foundation series ("psychohistory") Psychohistory is defined by Asimov as a 'profound statistical science that deals with the reactions of human conglomerates to fixed social and economic stimuli'.

Utility - A second opposition to the social sciences/humanities is their 'economic utility'. The reasoning goes thus - Does knowing history/philosophy/anthropology help a person to produce something of economic value? This argument is perhaps a little muted for sciences like economics but nevertheless, it exists. After all, an engineer produces machines, technologies and all things of economic value. What does the poet produce except wishy-washy and touchy-feely passages ?

I for one, consider that BOTH sets of subjects have their place in the human experience. I would go so far to say that, someone who refutes this is destined to lead an 'incomplete' life. If science is the expression of our ability as humans to reason in extraordinarily complex ways, then the social sciences/humanities remind us that there are some things which cannot be reasoned.
The social sciences/humanities keeps our mind open to the qualitative, reminds us to appreciate the paradoxical, ambiguous, amorphous aspects of life. Science requires that I maintain a habitual and very high standard of proof in reasoning and in understanding qualitative and quantitative ideas. The disciplines pull in different directions, but the tension keeps the mind from shriveling, keeps us ready to absorb all I can, and perhaps most importantly keeps us from dismissing either camp in its entirety. The most important contribution of humanities is the 'willingness to accept' both aspects. They liberate us from the "Yes or No" shackes of science.

Moreover, i will allege here that even the so-called 'hard sciences' delve into the relam of ambiguity. One needs to accept the unprovable axiom as the starting point of mathematics. At a higher level in physics, to reconcile the quantum and the relativistic models, one needs to conjure up the 10-dimension 'super-string' theory. Hence the hard-sciences are also no strangers to paradoxes.

Also, in the future humanities and social sciences will probably play a larger role in the economic arena. This will happen because as 'utility/functionality' becomes commoditized, all things being equal, there will be an economic premimum on 'asthetics, design, culture-context features' (all related to social sciences/humanities). Take the hippest tech product around, the iPod. It is successful as it combines both the techological brilliance of the flash memory drive the asthetic appreal of its minimalist design. Guess where Steve Jobs got it's idea from? Well, they came from a calligraphy class that he attended as a college-going youth. And we are saying that a subject like calligraphy is 'useless' ?