Re: Real Science (was Re: serious)

From: Jan de Koning <jan@dekoning.ca>
Date: Thu Jan 08 2004 - 13:14:05 EST

At 06:37 AM 08/01/2004 -0800, Dr. Blake Nelson wrote:

>By the way, did you intend to imply that only natural
>sciences are "real" science and that social sciences
>are not? That would seem uncharacteristically
>exclusive of you and depend on a particular, unstated
>definition of science (since empirical investigation,
>theory formulation, etc. that you mention all inhere
>in the social sciences -- or at least subparts
>thereof). ;)

Of course, Howard does not want to exclude anything, but he used here the
old ,medieval distinction between Arts and Sciences. It just goes to show
that it is very hard to get away (in any English speaking country) from the
Middle Ages. In other countries he would be called a professor in Physics,
where Physices would still be called (maybe) a science. However, Theology
is not a science, and maybe a Theology- course is given in the Arts part of
the University. Or, is Theology, (as trying to learn about "God") the
direction giving part of a University?
BTW are the Social Sciences part of the Sciences so that one gets degrees
like B.Sc.? Or, do they still get B.A. degrees, thus indicating that
Soocial Sciences are nor "real" sciences?
I am confused here. I studied mathematics and a bit philosophy but got a
B.Sc. degree,

Jan de Koning
Received on Thu Jan 8 13:05:40 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 08 2004 - 13:05:41 EST