you might think as i once thought that math, physics are superior to social sciences because it’s more difficult.
i do agree, and probably do for lower levels of these subjects, at least for myself. it was harder for me to learn quadratics than to learn about WWII in tenth grade.
but when you climb up the ivory tower of knowledge, you will see how those strong logical foundations of mathematics make it so much easier to scale the tower.
“mathematics is nothing more than an extremely efficient tool for
making internally consistent arguments based on pure logic.”
so once you prove an axiom and theory, it is very unlikely or impossible for it to break down. you know you’re scaling a very safe scaffolding of metal beams.
and contrast this to economics or history.
many of the claims you make are often inconclusive.
even if it’s backed up by data, sources of information, there are so many things like confirmation bias, non-standardized methods of data collection that people can use to poke holes into your theory.
coming up with the data is more important than the theme you’re trying to prove.
in mathematics, you can run infinite number of experiments to test your equations with perfect data.
in computer science, physics, chemistry, you can run also a high volume of experiments to produce repeatable results, but there are problems like NP-Completeness in CS, some problems which cannot be easily observed in sciences.
contrast this with economics, you maybe could repeat some experiments never perfectly with similar settings
contrast this with history, can you ever repeat experiments?
so when you go towards social sciences, you have also a lot of work that has been done, but the frameworks are going in all directions. some precariously rely on another, some are pushing against another to make it topple. removing one beam could potentially destroy a whole section of this structure.
i like learning about social sciences but i don’t like studying it. but maybe this is also the allure of these subjects.