"All science is either physics or stamp collecting."
— Ernest Rutherford (who later won the Nobel Prize for chemistry)
Many "hard" Science Fiction authors, trained as they are in the hard sciences, tend to take digs at the softer sciences in their works. The reasons for this vary, but the most common criticism is that it's much harder to perform repeatable experiments. Scientists strive towards empiricism and the "scientific method", and many humanities or social sciences are trying to study things that cannot easily be studied strictly and subjected to experimentation, which makes writers feel justified in considering them as "pseudoscience".
This happens outside of science fiction as well. Often, scientist characters in non-Science Fiction shows will disrespect the softer sciences when they have to deal with them. In real life, common targets are Psychology (see below), Psychiatry (often portrayed as the medical equivalent of the Church of Happyology, which is ironic considering that church's own attitude towards it), Economics ("The Dismal Science"), Linguistics (except by some, c.f. Sheldon Cooper), &c.. Some can have a grudging respect for economics and political science, the two that tell if they will get any money for rockets and particle accelerators, but psychology, sociology and the like are Acceptable Targets.
Think of it as an interdisciplinary Take That. How much the rivalry is Serious Business, and how much friendly banter, depends on the people involved. It's still an influential conflict that not only has spawned new theories and schools, but became a full blown "war" during the 90's. The standard comeback from soft scientists is that their subject is more "applicable" or more relevant to life and society at large (e.g.: as hit and miss as psychology can be, even biologists admit that neurological or even pharmacological solution to mood disorders should only be a last resort). Another reaction is that these complaints come from those for whom science has been fetishized by, usually non-scientists, thus missing the point entirely and cheapening both.
A related phenomenon is "hard science" and business students criticizing subjects like Literary Criticism and Philosophy for being more Wild Mass Guessing and having little utility in careers outside the academic world. This overlooks actual, legitimate philosophies that adults can also make use of (like for example, studying logic and reasoning), and of course, how in Real Life businesses prefer candidates who bring different perspectives and ways of thinking to their jobs.
Also see All Psychology Is Freudian, which also contributes to how psychology became such a target - psychoanalysis is blatantly unscientific navel-gazing, but because it was one of psychology's most vocal minorities, the "psychologists sitting in couches charging 200 bucks to talk about your mom" stereotype became a Never Live It Down. Modern types of psychology, such as behaviourism, cognitive science and neuroscience, are a lot harder yet just as practical. In this case, calling Freudians quacks would work, but Skinner's experiments have been repeatedly verified. However, the history of scams, the possible lack of ethics - see theseexperiments, the Bedlam House, and behaviourism's possibility of abuse - and "pop psychology" in general still haven't liberated it from being an acceptable target.
For anti-intellectualism by non-intellectuals, see Science Is Bad and Science Is Wrong. See MD Envy and Not That Kind of Doctor, which can be related.
Not related to erections in any way and more specifically not related to the Sci-Fi Ghetto.
open/close all folders
There's an old joke where the dean of a college complains how much the various science departments are costing the college. The chemistry department needs test tubes and bunsen burners, the physics department needs particle accelerators and Tesla coils, the astronomy department needs telescopes, etc.. He says, "Why can't they be more like the Mathematics classes? They only need paper and a wastebasket. And the Philosophy department is even cheaper; they don't even need the wastebasket!"
Ironically, math could be considered "harder" (as in more theoretical, less empirical) than any of the other sciences.
Q: What did the <insert choice of Butt Monkey field here> major say to the <insert any "practical" or "hard" science here> major? A: "Would you like fries with that?"
In Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, a few intellectuals met by the computer scientist protagonist are insufferable idiots with little grip on reality.
The statistician narrator in Stanisław Lem's His Master's Voice pejoratively calls the group of linguists, psychologists, "pleiographers" etc. "elves".
Inverted in Stephen King's The Stand. Not only is hard science bad, but one of the heroes is a sociologist.
In Starship Troopers, Heinlein goes on at length about how flawed 20th century psychology was/is. However Future!Psychology teaches nothing but "hard truths"... by the math department.
If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.
Discussed and subverted in Michael Crichton's Sphere. One of the Jerk Ass physicists asks what somebody from such a useless field as psychology is doing on the mission. The psychologist protagonist points out (perhaps only to himself) what terrible people skills the average physicist has. It turns out the psychologist is the only one mentally stable enough to handle the nigh-omnipotence the title sphere gives without killing everyone.
Also discussed in another Crichton novel, Timeline, where there is an even starker contrast as it's between a physicist and a historian. Perhaps deconstructed, since the physicist protagonist solves problems in the present, while the historians solve problems in the past.
On one hand, one minor character is an eminent chemist. He has a brief conversation with the (currently bamboozled) sociologist protagonist: Sociologist: "I can quite understand that it [the villains' scheme] doesn't fit in with your work as it does with sciences like Sociology, but—" Chemist: "There are no sciences like Sociology." The chemist is then murdered by the villains, the sociologist framed for the murder, and blackmailed into running propaganda for them. Lewis's objection to sociology (within the book, at least) was that it, like the other soft sciences, invites the scientist to treat people as specimens, without compassion. His chemist says, "I happen to believe that you can't study men; you can only get to know them, which is quite a different thing."
On the other hand, the de facto main character of the trilogy is a philologist (one who studies language), and his ability to communicate complex ideas ends up being extremely important, and the main villain of the first two books is a physicist.
In the end it treats the branches as more complimentary; "soft" sciences are useless without harder material backing them up, but "hard" sciences turn out dehumanizing without "soft" sciences to keep them in check.
In Isaac Asimov's Foundation series psychology is a major factor in the series along with Hari Seldon's psychohistory a specific branch. However a closer examination will tell you it shares little to nothing with current practice having through the countless centuries become a hard mathematical science... and also gives you psychic powers because y'know. Psychohistory itself is the statistical analysis of humanity that in sufficient mass becomes completely predictable, modern statistics Up to Eleven
In Bones, Temperance Brennan takes constant digs at psychology, saying it's unscientific...this despite constantly being proven wrong, or using principles from it herself (with bizarre justifications about how it's not psychology), or even the obvious effectiveness of psychological profiler Dr. Sweets. This is frequently lampshaded by other characters.
This behavior was actually the subject of a Take That in an episode where Booth and Bones head to a mental hospital where Bones makes pointed remarks to the head psychologist there. Eventually after a while of this the psychologist finally gets sick of this and points out that while her expertise in the dead is all well and dandy, he's using his training to help 'living people' who desperately need it, soft science or not.
In the same episode, Bones mistakes a delusional patient for an actual doctor. It's unclear as to whether this supports her view (psychiatry minus the pharmacology degree can be perfectly emulated by any reasonably bright basket case) or not.
She's since changed her mind during a period where Sweets was staying with her. Apparently he leaves his psychology books and journals by the toilet and she started reading them. Much to her surprise she found them scientific, eye-opening, and useful for understanding the thought processes and emotions of both herself and others.
Given her lack of social skills in youth, emotional detachment/repression, sensitivity to criticism, and arrogance in regards to her own intelligence, insight, and objectivity, it's not hard to believe that she had a few negative experiences with a psychologist or two when she was younger and wrote off the whole field as quackery for years as a result.
Bones and Sweets are interrogating a super genius because he menaced a scientific who was building a device that theoretically could destroy the universe. The man works welding things. When Sweets tell him that for being a genius his profession is very humble, the man retorts that at least his work is real, psychologists cannot say that of themselves.
On The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon (a theoretical physicist) is often belittling engineers (like Howard) even calling them "the Oompa-Loompas of science" once. Of course, Sheldon tends to belittle anyone who doesn't live up to his lofty standards (i.e., everyone else), including his other friends Raj (an astrophysicist) and Leonard (an experimental physicist).
Sheldon also fell victim to a more literal version of this trope when he briefly comments on the inaccuracy of the social sciences in the episode "The Friendship Algorithm", while he presents Penny with his "friendship questionnaire". He wasn't happy about doing one, as in his view the social sciences are 'largely hokum', but saw no alternative. Sheldon even botches the methodology: no social scientist in their right mind would expect a respondent to handle a 200-question exam.
Not to mention that questionnaires or interviews are subject to people altering their answers to please the one asking the questions - hence why many social sciences try hard to make sure the subjects are comfortable and act as they would naturally.
He was also horrified by the thought of funding going to the English Literature and Philosophy departments: "Oh, the Humanities!"
Leonard's parents (a neurologist and an anthropologist) apparently only used sex in their relationship for reproduction, and both wrote papers on it. His mother visits and discusses this with Sheldon, pointing out because her paper was from a neurological standpoint that means it was the only one worth reading, to which Sheldon promptly agrees.
In the episode where Sheldon has to give a speech, one of his opening jokes is at the expense of a geologist, which he (drunkenly) follows with 'I joke with the geologists, but it's only because I have no respect for their field.' This one is interesting because of the fact that geology is a hard science.
As is neurobiology, Amy Farrah Fowler's field which Sheldon is condescending toward, leading to their 'breakup' and Sheldon's purchasing 25 cats. Most of the evidence suggests that Sheldon just thinks all other scientists (or for that matter, all other humans) and their work are innately inferior to him and his work.
Sheldon's hatred of geology ("the dirt people!") has become a running gag.
Physicists and geologists historically were rivals (covered in the book A Short History of Nearly Everything) as in the past they were the two major branches of science solving many of the same problems and competing for the same talent and benefactors. Given that it's Sheldon, it's not that surprising he hasn't yet gotten over that grudge from centuries ago.
Amy Farrah Fowler has also belittled Bernadette's field of microbiology, saying that while she studies the brain: "the organism responsible for Beethoven's symphony", Bernadette studies yeast: "the organism responsible for 'Muller light'."
Interestingly, Sheldon usually takes linguistics very seriously even though it is considered one of the "soft" sciences, often pointing out phonetically correct ways to say the words he's written (and pointing to the word written in the international phonetic alphabet).
Which makes his horrible handle on Klingon phonetics and pronunciation even funnier.
He took it pretty badly when another physicist made fun of his own specialty this way, though.
Interestingly, however, when Raj's sister Priya (the only non-hard scientist recurring character save Penny) was going out with Leonard, Sheldon uncharacteristcally never mocked her academic discipline (the law), despite disliking her. Fridge Brilliance kicks in when you realize that a discipline comprised largely of making and/or interpreting strict rules and regulations which maintain or promote social order is right up Sheldon's alley.
In Stargate Atlantis, an early episode has McKay claim that medicine is more akin to voodoo than real science. This while said "voodoo" is being used to administer a gene therapy which will allow him to use Ancient technology. Medicine is voodoo to HIM, because he can't understand it. It just feels like he is belittling the entire profession because... well... he's McKay.
This piece by physicist and musician Arthur Roberts is dripping with disdain for the weaker sciences. Many of his other songs also feature barbs at social sciences, albeit less prominently.
In Professor Layton and the Unwound Future, the Prime Minister (a former scientist) is talked into taking part in a scientific demonstration after the demonstrator brings up how he abandoned the hard sciences for politics.
Gordon Freeman of Freeman's Mind feels indignant toward psychology. Although, this may have less to do with scientific elitism than the fact that Gordon is a friggin' loon, and as such not enamored of what they probably have to say about him.
The page picture is the first image of the What If? entry "All the Money", in which author Randall Munroe handwaves away how you managed to acquire all the money that exists by invoking A Wizard Did It. The image is of Rob and Megan from xkcd, and Rob has drawn a pentacle on the floor.
Megan: Whatchya doing? Rob: Economics. Alt Text: Well, yes, I can see THAT.
The Sokal hoax was a Take That from a physics professor to postmodernist social studies academics, or more specifically, the tendency of po-mo theorists to pepper their writings with nonsensical scientific analogies to make their work sound more rigorous than it is. Sokal sent a paper of pure drivel which would embarrass a second year physics students, but wrote it so it agreed with the political and social views of the journal Social Text. Sokal's paper (in brief - the real paper contains more nonsense than can be discussed here) argued that a properly free mathematics would free us from the social constructs which are implied by our rigid, unyielding, dogmatic, anti-feminist, capitalist, and unjust theory of gravity. Of course, they did publish it of their own free will...
Real scientists engage in this to varying degrees, though mostly it tends to be light-hearted ribbing between colleagues. Especially given that actually annoying the other fields means they won't be able to ask that department for help when something comes up in their work that they can't answer on their own.
Nearly every academic discipline has this; it's hardly unique to the sciences. Philosophers are treated as Acceptable Targets by pretty much every discipline, including - maybe especially - philosophy itself. Economists likewise. And Sociologists, especially the more qualitatively-minded ones. And virtually every time someone in a more traditional academic discipline deigns to even mention Communications, it's in the form of a Take That. In all cases, these things can range anywhere from good-natured ribbing to genuine seething hatred.
Mind, the philosophers get everyone else back by releasing whole books arguing that Science Is Wrong.
Among law students this can arise. The Law School Admission Test is standardized and based largely on the recognition and application of generally accepted principles of logic. Many from the soft sciences don't like its use as it seems to be a bar for people like them to get into law school. The highest performers are physics, math and economics majors while sociology, psychology, and liberal arts majors score below average. 
Similarly, the standard tongue-in-cheek law students' response to the hard on soft science debate is "well now, that's all very nice, but what is the earning potential of your degree?" The serious response to being told "law isn't a real subject" is usually either "O.K, defend yourself in court", or the more convincing argument that without laws and legal systems civilization cannot function.
The trope is inverted when discussing law schools. A low end law school is basically a 3 year prep-course to pass the bar exam and enable the graduate to practice law. Elite law schools spend more time on philosophical or sociological questions - the "big ideas" - and less time on the nuts and bolts. The latter are more prestigious and only accept the more gifted students, as well as leading to the best-paying jobs and appointments as judges; of course, that means that for the first few years, you'd better have some good paralegals and legal secretaries working for you.
Medical students and physicians can get some of the same flak from scientists in the fields which sit at the periphery of medicine. Their responses parallel those of lawyers. "Professor, take over for me in surgery." Physicians do have a bad habit of talking down to attorneys and dentists, at least in the United States.
Richard Dawkins doesn't think much about theology and religion studies, dismissing the former as nonsense.
Another example would be biologist and atheist blogger, P.Z. Myers, who defended Dawkins against criticisms that he hadn't read any theology through comparing these critics to courtiers of the Emperor who had no clothes . Also, pertinent is that Dawkins actually has a rather wide reading of theology (he often quotes major theologians and the major holy books off the top of his head in debates), despite being of the opinion that it is the study of non-existent things.
Evolutionary psychology seems to be the go-to field (or approach) for many people who want social norms and mores explained, but dislike the nature of fields like sociology or social anthropology.
Richard Feynman was infamous for this approach. An anecdote supposedly had him insult the Philosophy department at his university during a faculty speech, which resulted in the entire department walking out on him.
Sometimes you don't even need scientists to get that. Just get some engineering/exact sciences (computing, math, physics) and humanities/social sciences (anthropology, history, psychology, communication studies) together and they'd probably taking shots at each other's areas. Not to mention paychecks...
Conservative publicists sometimes approach this attitude, since they see modern academic teaching in literature, sociology etc. to be overcrept by left-winged philosophy, while science such as physics and mathematics remains perfectly objective and politically neutral.
Institutionalized in the governance of the Iranian higher education system, where the government has repeatedly "crack[ed]down" on social science professors for spreading western and "insufficiently Islamic" ideas and ideologies. For similar reasons as above, the far more apolitical hard sciences don't attract that scrutiny.
Graffiti seen on a toilet roll dispenser at the University of East Anglia: Sociology degrees. Please take as many as you need.
How do you scare a bio major? Make him do a math problem.