On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not an expert on this Napoleon's work and the controversies about > it the way Louis is, but there's one thing that's come up very clearly > in reading reviews of his recent book: it's amazing how some people > (the reviewer in the NY TIMES science section a month or two ago, for > example) seem to jump to attention to support him because he claims to > be "scientific" and reject his opponents because he claims that they > are not "scientific." But his work, as far as I can tell, isn't > scientific at all. > With due respect, how can you tell if something is "scientific" or not? Karl Popper and his followers notwithstanding, it is not at all easy - probably impossible - to define the term unambiguously. Can't we just evaluate each argument on its specific merits instead of relying on labels or certificates like "scientific"? Frankly I find it rather pathetic whenever I see someone claim the term "scientific" for their ideas whether it is evolutionary psychologists, economists or string-theorists for that matter. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
