4 ms·

> Culture and tradition also relies on experiential knowledge—that doesn’t make it a science. What's "science"? In mediaeval Europe, theology was viewed as a "

> Culture and tradition also relies on experiential knowledge—that doesn’t make it a science. What's "science"? In mediaeval Europe, theology was viewed as a "science", indeed the "queen of the sciences", more noble than all the others. It may be objected that "science" was used in a broader sense in the Middle Ages than today; maybe that's true, but on the other hand, it is unclear exactly what the contemporary definition actually is - nowadays, people talk of "science" or "sciences" which are variously described as "natural", "empirical", "observational", "experiential", "experimental", "formal", "theoretical", "mathematical", "psychological", "medical", "clinical", "social", "legal", "human", "historical", "philological", etc - what is it that all these things actually have in common? > Indeed, my problem with the social sciences is that they intrude on the province of culture, tradition, and religion. It fills the vacuum of authority resulting from the secularization of society As well as the traditional Christian understanding of "theology as a science", I might also point to the phrases one sometimes encounters in Islamic contexts, such as the "science of hadith" or "science of fiqh". The idea you have of culture/tradition/religion and science as opposed is in itself rather non-traditional, not how mediaeval thinkers thought.

rayiner 3y ago
I would say that science requires being able to formulate internally consistent theories that generate precise predictions of reality that can be falsified by experiment. Nuclear physics is a science. Medicine is barely one. Simply drawing rough conclusions from data isn’t science—that’s something everyone does.
- skissane 3y ago
  > I would say that science requires being able to formulate internally consistent theories that generate precise predictions of reality that can be falsified by experiment. Is astronomy a science then? Astronomy is often said to be an observational rather than experimental science, but if your definition of "science" requires falsification by experiment (as opposed to just observation), then astronomy might not be a science at all. And social science can make experimentally falsifiable claims. For example, one theory in political science (with some data to support it) claims that parliamentary systems (in which the executive is subordinated to the legislature) produce superior outcomes (greater political stability, superior policy choices, etc) to presidential systems (in which the legislative and executive branches are independent and roughly equal powers). One way to test this experimentally: convince a few US states to adopt the parliamentary system, wait a few decades, and then look for any statistically significant differences in outcomes between those states which adopted a parliamentary system versus those which retained a presidential (or should I say gubernatorial) one. I mentioned before Eric Kaufmann. His book Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? suggests that religion will triumph over secularism in the long-run due to a higher birth rate. If, over the next 500 years, the world never gets significantly less secular than it is today, I think he'd agree his theory would be falsified.

rayiner 3y ago

I would say that science requires being able to formulate internally consistent theories that generate precise predictions of reality that can be falsified by experiment. Nuclear physics is a science. Medicine is barely one. Simply drawing rough conclusions from data isn’t science—that’s something everyone does.

skissane 3y ago
> I would say that science requires being able to formulate internally consistent theories that generate precise predictions of reality that can be falsified by experiment. Is astronomy a science then? Astronomy is often said to be an observational rather than experimental science, but if your definition of "science" requires falsification by experiment (as opposed to just observation), then astronomy might not be a science at all. And social science can make experimentally falsifiable claims. For example, one theory in political science (with some data to support it) claims that parliamentary systems (in which the executive is subordinated to the legislature) produce superior outcomes (greater political stability, superior policy choices, etc) to presidential systems (in which the legislative and executive branches are independent and roughly equal powers). One way to test this experimentally: convince a few US states to adopt the parliamentary system, wait a few decades, and then look for any statistically significant differences in outcomes between those states which adopted a parliamentary system versus those which retained a presidential (or should I say gubernatorial) one. I mentioned before Eric Kaufmann. His book Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? suggests that religion will triumph over secularism in the long-run due to a higher birth rate. If, over the next 500 years, the world never gets significantly less secular than it is today, I think he'd agree his theory would be falsified.