Well, Keith, I have to rise to the bait. Especially as you have said you wouldn't argue back <smile>.
snip > Being scientifically trained (a long time ago!) I'm prejudiced, of course, > but I'd venture to suggest that the greatest thinkers (and well-rounded > ones, too) ever since the Enlightenment have been scientists rather than > artists or humanists by a ratio of something like five to one. (But I'll > give notice now that if this produces a controversy on FW, I'm > not prepared > to spend any of my time defending my view -- unless someone can come up > with the [impossible] task of producing an objective short-list > of the best > intellects of the last 250 years.) The stuff that scientists deal with is the physical world, more or less observable, unchanging, and thus essentially predictable. Not that we don't have to think hard to see the patterns in what we observe, or look hard to find those things that are hidden. The stuff that, for example, political 'scientists', deal with is human beings and their organizations. This is immediately very difficult: we are observing behavior, but not the complex and diverse thinking that lies behind behavior; we are trying to understand groups, which only compounds the complexity of individuals (while at the same time simplifying it in curious ways). I would submit that political scientists are trying to do something far harder than 'science' scientists do. If this is so, it is natural that hard scientists should be able to produce measurable results (such as the structure of the DNA discovery) more rapidly and more acceptably than soft scientists, but it doe not mean that the former are smarter, more hard-working, or more accomplished than the latter. It is just that they have fastened on something easier. Note what happens when hard science tries to address the realm of human beings. Psychologists flounder and latch on to the goofiest of theories, e.g. Freud. Mathematicians maintain their discipline, but achieve only trivial insights, e.g. social statisticians and public opinion survey types. In my own view -- and this is the focus of my own work -- language will be the key discipline for us. (And thus my interest in memetics.) In the meantime, many of us have rolled our sleeves up and are trying to help society and individuals do the right thing in terms of policies and actions, though without a grand science underlying what we do, we are often reduced to argumentation. (And, again, thus my interest in memetics.) We soft scientists have a LONG way to go, but at least <PROVOKE toggle on> we are aiming at something important. It doesn't mean we are dumber, only more courageous. <PROVOKE toggle off> Cheers, Lawry
