On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:19:57 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 12, 10:48*am, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:

To go back to the original point I disagreed with, the idea that
something isn't science if it can't produce testable models is simply
wrong, historically and in contemporary practice. And the reason that
the physical sciences are more able, more often, to produce such
models is not that they are "superior" sciences. It's because the
things they study always behave the same, even if the sameness is some
statistical value. When the singular or collective behavior of human
beings are the subjects, or part of the subjects, that's rarely true.
But those studies are still scientific in every essential meaning of
the word, which is an elaboration on the ancient idea that science is
a systematic investigation to increase the store of knowledge.
Ed Huntress


jsw

This exchange reminds me of the story about the old economics graduate
returning to the campus and talking to the economics professor. They
talked about how much the world has changed and how important it was
to know economics. The professor was grading the final exam papers at
the time and showed some to the graduate.
Who exclaimed " Why these are the very same questions that were on my
final exam ". And the professor answered " Well yes those are the
same questions, but we keep changing the answers."

To me the thing that casts doubt on how scientific a subject is is how
good is the repeatability of the theory. If the theory always
explains what happens, then is is science.

Well, there goes Newtonian physics. I guess Newton wasn't a scientist
then, huh?

If things do not repeat
the same way according to the theory, then it really is not science.

Unless your electrons suddenly develop personalities, you're in good
shape. Stick to things that are dead or were never alive, and you
won't have any trouble.

It is history, perhaps with a great theory of why things turned out as
it did. But not a science that can be used to see how things are
going to turn out.

Science is about acquiring knowledge. If it can make predictions,
that's great. But Louis Leakey would be disappointed to hear you say
he doesn't do science, even though he wouldn't venture to predict the
further evolution of the human race.

You're in the instrumentalist tank, Dan. It's good for dead things.

--
Ed Huntress