Dan Minette wrote: > > But, there are reasons that the "social sciences" are different > from sciences. > > Some characterization of science > Ok, I accept most of them, except one.
> 1) Theories are falsifiable by comparing detailed predictions with > observations > > 2) Experiments (or at least pseudo-experiments)* can be done to test the > theories. > > 3) There is either a single paradigm or a singular shift from an old > paradigm to a new paradigm. > > 4) Old theories are special cases of the new theory > > 5) Theory of complex phenomenon are explained in terms of theories of > simple phenomenon. One can outline the linkage, in principal at least. > > 6) The outcome of experiments is not influenced by human desires or > persuasions...it is independant of the free will of people. > > 7) Professionals do not make retorical arguements to advance their case. > Number _6_ is not necessary to define science, because then you will be excluding sciences that deal with _human_ behaviour. In other words, if you exclude human desires, persuasions, emotions or free will, you will _never_ be able to take a scientific approach to them. Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
