3 ms·
My problem is that the question is entirely unscientific. There are reasonable interpretations and arguments for both sides of every potential answer. This is w
by j2kun 12y ago
My problem is that the question is entirely unscientific. There are reasonable interpretations and arguments for both sides of every potential answer. This is why basing a question on actual facts (such as, what was this particular scientist's argument, or what was found in that study) is a better idea.
- igravious 12y agoNot everything can be covered by science. Not everything that is not covered by science is bad. Some of the things that are not covered by science are bad: these include pseudo-scientific beliefs like astrology, religious belief, and so on. The question here is to do with knowledge and scientific explanation. This is the subject matter of epistemology (the study of knowledge in and of itself) and philosophy of science (how something gets to be scientific in the first place). You are right that it is entirely unscientific but you are wrong that think that as a result it should be rejected. Not everything that is unscientific should be rejected, this is one instance of that. You need to learn the distinction between science and philosophy of science.
- j2kun 12y agoIs this not a scientific analysis of a science-based course (psychology)? How could unscientific things be good in this context?