RE: Real Science (was Re: serious)

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Thu Jan 08 2004 - 13:18:59 EST

The data collected in the social sciences cannot be collected, in
principle, by purely physical devices. Thus, the subject matter of
social sciences goes beyond the purely physical. Therefore, social
sciences are not science in the sense of, say, physics. Of course, all
human studies are based on human consciousness and reasoning, which are
outside the purview of human thought itself.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Jan de Koning
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Real Science (was Re: serious)

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
old ,medieval distinction between Arts and Sciences. It just goes to
that it is very hard to get away (in any English speaking country) from
Middle Ages. In other countries he would be called a professor in
where Physices would still be called (maybe) a science. However,
is not a science, and maybe a Theology- course is given in the Arts part
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
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 13:19:02 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 08 2004 - 13:19:03 EST