[Buddha-l] it's not about belief -= science & empiricism

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Bob Zeuschner schreef:

> <>
>
> I do believe the previous and ongoing discussion was focusing upon the 
> "hard sciences," or what you describe as "science in a restricted sense."
> I personally am in a department of philosophy, which in turn is under 
> the "social sciences" banner -- but I would not consider philosophy, 
> history, sociology, psychology or linguistics to be "science" in the 
> sense that is involved when we discuss the question of whether 
> "Christianity is the foundation of science" or whether "Christianity 
> has been an obstacle to scientific discoveries."
> In my mind philosophy is closer to an art form than to hard science.
> Bob
>
> ___________________________________________

The social sciences banner is not an essential definition, it may have 
to do with economics or just convenience. As you say philosophy is not a 
science. But psychology and sociology are, because they have the 
structure of  a science, with calculus, model, experimental circle and 
all. The theories of Kuhn and Popper apply for them as well. There is a 
difference with physics indeed (read Peter Whinch: 'The idea of a social 
science') but this doesn't have to mean that they're banned from the 
domain of 'the will to know' (Nietzsche).
By the way many philosophers today have shown that the idea of a hard 
science is a myth. My contacts with the Mind and Life group have given 
me astonishing examples of the softness of some leading hard scientists. 
Remember Fritjof Capra? His ghost still spooks around!

-- 

Erik


www.xs4all.nl/~jehms