I stand by my response in and of itself, but I sheepishly admit that it’s not actually a response to you at all. Rereading your comment, I conclude that I was overtrained on the kind of objections I responded to, which you didn’t actually make… sorry about that.
Doesn’t bother me in the slightest. In fact, I almost included another parenthetical:
(Hard scientists probably do think hard is good and soft is bad, but that’s because they’re hard scientists. Soft scientists are probably sensitive to the negative connotations the hard scientists attach to these terms, because there is something of a rivalry between hard and soft science.)
I guess you’ve studied some kind of soft science at a college or university?
(I feel like I have overused the terms, though. I make sound as if there is a strict divide, when in my mind it’s an evenly distributed spectrum.)
(nods) Fair enough, and agreed throughout.
I stand by my response in and of itself, but I sheepishly admit that it’s not actually a response to you at all. Rereading your comment, I conclude that I was overtrained on the kind of objections I responded to, which you didn’t actually make… sorry about that.
Doesn’t bother me in the slightest. In fact, I almost included another parenthetical:
(Hard scientists probably do think hard is good and soft is bad, but that’s because they’re hard scientists. Soft scientists are probably sensitive to the negative connotations the hard scientists attach to these terms, because there is something of a rivalry between hard and soft science.)
I guess you’ve studied some kind of soft science at a college or university?
(I feel like I have overused the terms, though. I make sound as if there is a strict divide, when in my mind it’s an evenly distributed spectrum.)