I have colleagues (I'll let you guess their areas of inquiry) who see no difference between what we do in science and what we do in literary criticism: both (they say) are arguing from evidence, and hence both should be "science."
I do not argue with them anymore; I simply smile and go back to eating my lunch. m ------- Marc L Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology Baker University College of Arts & Sciences ------- "I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it the right way, did not become more complicated." -- Paul Anderson > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 11:55 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: [tips] Does the new definition of science measure > up? | Science | guardian.co.uk > > The British Science Council attempts to define science. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/03/science-def inition-council-francis-bacon > > In addition to the problem noted in the article (viz., that > the definition doesn't distinguish science from many > humanistic disciplines, such a history), I think the use of > the term "evidence" here is vague. > "Empirical evidence" might have been better. As it now > stands, those who, for instance, use citations from Scripture > as "evidence" for a claim, could also claim to be > "scientists" under this definition. > > Chris > -- > > Christopher D. Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > Canada > > > > 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 > [email protected] > http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ > > ========================== > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
