3 ms·
Exactly. That's also something that is used as an argument, which is a strawman: You are refuting the validity of a number of fields if you don't accept them as
by wtdata 7y ago
Exactly. That's also something that is used as an argument, which is a strawman: You are refuting the validity of a number of fields if you don't accept them as sciences.
There are plenty of very valid disciplines of human knowledge that aren't sciences (and they seem perfectly fine in not being sciences since they have a clear aim and methodology for their work that, by impossibility of what they do, just can't follow the scientific method). History is a clear example.
- cygx 7y agoHistory is a clear example. Hypothesis: Troy existed Prediction: there's a buried city in asia minor Test: dig it up
- mc32 7y agoDoes it become archeology at that point, or archeology and paleontology in support of history?
- AstralStorm 7y agoBoth and more. (Linguistics, physics and genetics can chime in.) History is a big umbrella study domain, not one science. For example, it also embraces epistology, studies of warfare and studies of art. It builds hypotheses based on output of harder sciences and sparse evidence, which is also evaluated for veracity, as examples of low quality examples taken as evidence are becoming more visible all the time.
- JetSpiegel 7y ago"Troy existed" is just one of the low level hypothesis History proposes. Hypothesis: What happened in Armenia was a genocide. How do you disprove this? There are arguments for and against, but ultimately this would require reading the minds of the leaders at the time. You can also present logical arguments (which I totally buy, this is just an example), but there is no way to test this. There is only one historic timeline, so History is not a science.
- Chris2048 7y ago> You are refuting the validity of a number of fields if you don't accept them as sciences. It's refuting their validity as sciences. Science is often taken as more authoritative and objective as other subjects, so the label matters. I may be a perfectly good dentist, the fact I am not a neuro-surgeon doesn't invalidate my worth as a dentist; But If I claimed to be a neuro-surgeon I should be investigated before I cut open any skulls.
- wtdata 7y agoI know, that was my point, I probably explained it wrongly. I meant that by stating that social sciences aren't actual sciences and have profound problems, one is in no way stating that disciplines that aren't sciences (like History, the example given) aren't not valid pursuits of human knowledge.
- AstralStorm 7y agoEven a dentist is supposed to base their treatments in evidence based medicine. It is a specialty thereof.