RE: Public perceptions of science: was Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 21:24:02 EDT

There really is noting objectionable with the use of such terminology but it betrays the history of modern science that is based on the use of precise experiments and mathematics in order to conduct the process of knowing. First it was the use of microscopes, telescopes, cameras, etc. and humans to collect the data to the present where even the human element can be dispensed with when collecting the data. It is not absurd to define science as the study of the physical universe. Otherwise, the term becomes equivocal and thus meaningless.

 

Moorad

________________________________

From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Mon 9/12/2005 8:31 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; Terry M. Gray; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Public perceptions of science: was Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Terry M. Gray"
<grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 7:46 PM
Subject: RE: Public perceptions of science: was Why Most Published Research
Findings Are False

I agree totally with your comments. What may be objectionable is the use of
terms like social science and political science. There is nothing wrong with
referring to them as social studies and political studies.

But what's objectionable about the former terms? Or for that matter, with
physical studies or life studies (other than unfamiliarity)?

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Mon Sep 12 21:25:52 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 12 2005 - 21:25:52 EDT