Dear Tipsters,
I wonder if the term "quantification" should be included in the definition of
science?
The key part of the "new" definition is "a systematic methodology based on
evidence".
I would think that some historical and other humanities research could meet
that requirement.
I thought of including more under the methodology, for example, "experimental"
there are some kinds of investigation that seem scientific to me but do not
manipulate variables in a controlled manner (e.g., astronomy).
So perhaps quantification either in the explanation ("understanding" in the new
definition) or in the evidence gathered (measurement) would be a way of
separating science from non-science.
I would be interested to read Tipsters thoughts about this.
Sincerely,
Stuart
___________________________________________________________________
Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: (819)822-9600, Extension 2402
Department of Psychology, Fax: (819)822-9661
Bishop's University,
2600 College Street,
Sherbrooke,
Québec J1M 1Z7,
Canada.
E-mail: [email protected]
Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page:
http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
___________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Clark [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: March 4, 2009 3:06 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Does the new definition of science measure up? | Science |
guardian.co.uk
Hi
I think the question is complicated by the fact that people in the humanities
would differ among themselves with respect to their basic epistemological
goals. Certainly historically many people in literature, history, and the like
sought a "correct" interpretation of the events they were trying to understand.
Hence there would be standards (correspondence with text or historical events,
coherence, ...) by which their models would be evaluated and these criteria
might overlap quite a bit with those we use in science. Among such people,
there would even be people who adopted empirical and quantitative methods to
test their ideas.
But there are also people in the humanities and some social sciences (including
psychology) who have forsaken the idea of a true characterization for events.
The relativistic views of such postmodernists, deconstructionists, and the like
would appear to diverge from science at the very outset, leaving little room
for correspondences between the two "cultures."
Take care
Jim
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
[email protected]
Department of Psychology
University of Winnipeg
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3B 2E9
CANADA
>>> "Claudia Stanny" <[email protected]> 04-Mar-09 10:48 AM >>>
I was struck by this similarity between literary close reading and
scientific hypothesis testing the first time I had a serious discussion
about how people in the humanities do their scholarly work.
Granted, this isn't science, but I think the analysis qualifies as the
same sort of evidence-based critical thinking that scientists use when
evaluating a hypothesis.
For those of us in science, the relevant evidence is empirical data
generated from a well-designed study.
For those in these other areas, the evidence is the text written by the
author. The hypothesis might be something like "Jane Austen uses this
metaphor, literary technique, or symbolism to represent xxx." There is a
similar type of hypothesis testing that historians use, with text from
primary sources (diaries, newspaper articles of the time, etc) as the
evidence.
There are certainly differences in methodology. But I think they have a
legitimate point about the use of evidence. A big difference is what
"counts" as evidence.
Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D.
Director, Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment
Associate Professor, Psychology
University of West Florida
Pensacola, FL 32514 - 5751
Phone: (850) 857-6355 or 473-7435
e-mail: [email protected]
CUTLA Web Site: http://uwf.edu/cutla/
Personal Web Pages: http://uwf.edu/cstanny/website/index.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Carter [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:24 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Does the new definition of science measure up? |
Science | guardian.co.uk
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])
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
