Re: definition of science

From: <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>
Date: Sat Apr 23 2005 - 08:58:40 EDT

>Having enjoyed Michael's ironic elimination of geology and evolutionary
>biology from "true science," I should like you to follow up with an
>elaboration of your definition of science, below. &nbsp;Since you are a geologist
>yourself, how do you integrate the historical sciences into your definition
>of "science"?
>
Keith should speak for himself.

Probably a good way to view it is there are the so-called
"hard sciences" like say physics or chemistry, and there
are "hard to do sciences" like geology, history, biology
etc.

History does have the problem of being subjective, and
some of these dangers lie to varying degrees in geology
and biology as well. But the more information you have
available; (for example in the example of history)
eye-witness accounts, writings from the key
people, artifacts, etc., the better a case you have for
a particular point of view. It is certainly not just
speculations and opinions, although some of it obviously
can be.

Wayne
Received on Sat Apr 23 09:00:34 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 09:00:36 EDT