Hard Sciences are more likely to arrive at truthful knowledge claims than Soft Sciences. To what extent do you agree with this?
I would agree with the statement above under the preset premise that we consider truthful knowledge as being widespread knowledge that is agreed upon by many as being wholeheartedly true. As a result of the objective nature of the hard sciences, the hard sciences are able to reach conclusions that have much higher validity to them then the soft sciences. The outcomes of hard science experiments are more difficult to counter and in many ways are not subjective to the observer. This would mean that it could be agreed that hard sciences do in fact arrive at more truthful knowledge. However, we could consider that the subjective knowledge that soft sciences are able to provide is in fact valuable. Just because the results are not as clean cut as the conclusions from the hard sciences, are we able to dismiss the validity of the soft sciences entirely? I would agree no. However in a fair comparison between the two, I think that it would be hard to agree that the hard sciences do not lead to truthful knowledge in a way that is more convincing than that of the soft sciences. Ultimately there is simply a much higher element of uncertainty to the results of the soft sciences.