Soft science vs Hard science?

Recently I read a debate in The Hindu about scientists compulsion to explain their discoveries to laymen in their language. The debate was balanced from both sides. Both writers argued well. Gautam R. Desiraju who concluded his thoughts by saying that a scientist is not duty bound to communicate his or her work to the laymen also raised a question about the understanding of hard sciences and soft sciences.

Firstly, it should be clear to a 'laymen' that what is soft science and hard science. 'Hard Science' includes conventional Physics, Chemistry, Botany etc, where on the other side 'Soft science' includes Sociology, History, Political science, Economics etc. 

Mr. Desiraju doubted the ability of a common man to even understand soft sciences in a better way than hard one. His question is quite good.

In a country like India, where innovations and illiteracy go hand in hand, it is difficult to found the loopholes.

Let us take an example of History which is part of soft science. Since school times many of us consider it very challenging just because it consists many battles, wars, and DATES particularly! Well, there is nothing in it that no one can understand, but still, is it the only thing about History to get scared off? Any graduate in History can tell this that it is not the History. It is merely 'general knowledge', which can be of anything. We should not designate History as mere general knowledge. 

Now, what is History? It's a question and book as well written by E. H. Carr where he tries to define History. History is not taken seriously by everyone, because if this has been the case, we probably not witness the turmoil our world is facing.  There is nothing new is happening. Whatever is happening today, somewhere already happened in different manner and intensity. 

Shakespear said that this world is a stage. The Stage is same as it was, actors changed and will change. Our stage 'Earth' severely suffering from 'climate change'. Mr. Desiraju said climate change is easy to understand despite ultracool dwarf star (I modified his statement). If this is the case then why even so many UNFCCC's CoPs have to do struggle to sign agreements with countries. It simply means that people are not even able to understand soft sciences too. It's reaffirmed when President Donald Trump simply ignores the problem of 'climate change'.

I agree with Desiraju that people are not able to understand even soft sciences. Coming back to History. Historiography, Fascism, Imperialism, Oriental despotism are few notions of history which are for sure extremely difficult for a common person to understand. There are people who don't even want to understand this.

So, it is right to say that neither soft sciences nor hard sciences are easily graspable to laymen. Measures should be initiated in this regard 'as far as possible' but it should not be the compulsion. 

Some will definitely say that it will lead to ignorance, but that is not the case. It is only about the technicality of every domain. No one can understand everything about Music and Archaeology at the same time. 

Use smartphones, understand about its technicality as per your capacity, it will be absurd to learn how to make a smartphone. How it will be if a diplomat in spite of initiating peace talks get into the invention of a vaccine or a scientist despite inventing a vaccine indulge into peace talk. Yes, there views on each other's domain matter but they are not experts. 

At last only one thing to say that curiosity is good, but we should also remember that 'Curiosity killed the cat'.