Let’s clarify the hard-science tag for non-math questions

Question

See also this earlier post.

An answer that keeps reality in mind and links to various definitions (typically in wikipedia) for terms used and concepts introduced is the very exemplar of science-based. If it doesn’t have original calculations, graphs, etc. I would think that hard-science has a similar meaning to scientific publications, as different from “popular press”.

When does a hard-science tag simply not make sense for the subject (I don’t mean a counterfactual subject being disallowed, but asking for something that can’t be answered by calculation or literature search)? If there's no distinction between science-based and hard-science for non-math answers, should we drop it? Otherwise, how can we clearly state the difference, especially for those who are not familiar with scientific journals and might think that Popular Science is scientific when someone else is thinking of Nature as the relevant example?

Answer 1

I think hard-science should need to give references for every claim, but it should not need to require links to scientific articles (which, unless open access, the vast majority of readers won't have access to anyway), although linking to accessible scientific articles is definitely encouraged. Also the hard-science tag implies more rigorous argumentation.

It should be clear that a hard-science answer is not a scientific work in its own right. Probably most people who do the hard work to write an actual scientific article will publish it in a refereed journal or at least at a place like arXiv, instead of posting it on this site where you don't get scientific reputation for your hard work. Put your requirements for a tag too high, and you're almost guaranteed to get zero answers to questions tagged that way.

In the end, what people seek here is information. And the reason to put the hard-science tag on a question is to make sure that the information they get is actually backed by current science.

The requirements in the tag (note the "etc." and that this is clearly not an "and" list, as e.g. for some topics equations simply don't make sense) are to make sure this end is reached, but they are not ends themselves. So an answer should be judged on whether the real end is reached, not by mechanical checking items in a list.

A valid criticism for a hard-science answer would be "this claim is not sufficiently backed by the links/references you gave" or "the link/reference you gave was to a questionable web site", but IMHO not "this links to a reliable source for that information, but unfortunately that reliable source is not a scientific article".

Answer 2

Science Based

For questions that require answers based in hard science, not magic or pseudo-science, but do not require scientific citations. Consider alternatively the hard-science and reality-check tags. Avoid using this tag as the only tag on a question.

Hard-Science

For questions that require answers to be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Review the tag info before using this tag, and flag your question for moderator attention once posted to have the hard-science notice added. Consider alternatively the science-based and reality-check tags. Avoid using this tag as the only tag on a question.

The difference isn't exclusive to mathematical formulas. Hard-Science requires citations (of any sort) and implies a strict level of rigor on proving your claims, arguments, and conclusions. If you claim X or Y is the case, provide a link to a paper, or (as you mention) a mathematical formula to prove your point.

A Science-Based answer might read like an article in the magazine, Popular Science. A Hard-Science answer would not.

Answer 3

While I have distinct reservations about the term "hard-science", certainly there can be non-mathematical answers that are hard-science. May I suggest hard-science answers about biology, psychology (yes, it was mentioned earlier), chemistry, and geology. This will depend on the nature of the question.

Also, there can and will be answers where the tags of hard-science and science-based overlap. You may draw Venn diagrams to illustrate whatever notion of the overlap of these tags you may hold. The issue of how much mathematical explication is needed for answers will vary. It's easy to see that some answerers will provide equations and calculations for their answers to even science-based questions. After all, how can anybody stop an answer being more appropriate for the hard-science tag when the question was only science-based?

Frankly anyone familiar with classification theory (of which there are several) will know that any labels, categories, classifications, or taxonomies will inevitably be porous and any demarcation between related concepts will be permeable. This means that overlap and similarity between various subject matter are things that just have to be lived with. This doesn't diminish the value of tags, it's simply they don't have absolute value.

Earnest Rutherford may have said: "There is only physics and stamp collecting." This as about as absolutist as it gets (except he was probably joking and Rutherford was a New Zealander and New Zealanders have a funny sense of humour). While physics is awarded the hard-science, it's not the only game in town (I say this as someone who loves physics, but I'm not blind).

Simply expect hard-science answers to be more rigorous than science-based ones, but do not expect them to put in exclusively separate boxes. There will always be cross-overs. Tags are more like pointers showing which way the subject should be treated. There can't be absolutes.