lucas

Two questions for you:

1.    is psychoanalysis a science?     In the particular case that the question
refers to the issue of whether it is a science is questioned because it is not
"objective", others refer to quantum mechanics to justify its inclusion within the
frame of what constitutes science. Popper refuses its status as science by using the
criteria of nonfalsifiability....etcetera. In the criteria below asking for a
justification of science based on experimentation, proofs and I suspect granting
science a status of a higher truth than religion and philosophy, it is not clear how
the question would be answered.

2.    is a noncontextual definition of the difference between science and
non-science possible? Quantum mechanics, biology, mechanics, statistics, psychology
would almost certainly be defined as sciences, but alchemy and eugenics probably
would not...

regards

sdv

Lucas Sonnino wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> It seems to me that mistakes, evasions and some downright falsifications by a
> few scientists are being taken as an excuse to attack all of science and
> scientific method itself. Scientists are human and so it would be exceedingly
> strange if there were not a few bad scientists, just as there are bad doctors,
> bad lawyers, bad teachers and even some bad philosophers.
>
> The great advantage of the scientific method is that errors and falsifications
> are self-correcting in the long or more often short term, something which cannot
> be said for religion or philosophy, for instance.
>
> It seems that some think that scientific theories are another kind of dogma
> which scientists defend at all costs. While this may sometimes occur (see
> above), when scientific method is properly applied all theories are taken as
> provisional hypothesis to be tested by experimentation and are liable to be
> supplanted at any moment by other theories better adapted to experimental
> results (which in turn must be verified). Thus some theories are very soon
> discarded while others, even though apparently vindicated, must still be taken
> as approximations which may be soon replaced by better approximations. When
> scientific method is correctly applied science advances, otherwise not, and so
> is self-correcting. In this sense, an advance is taken to mean better
> correspondance between theory and results.
>
> It seems strange to me that so much is being written about science and
> scientists (but not generally by scientists), in seeming ignorance of the very
> basis of the scientific method.
>
> If on the other hand the discussion is referred to the desirability, objectives,
> and funding of scientific research, then we are talking politics, where
> different criteria apply.
>
> Regards,
>
> Luca