Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: three types of science | |
Author: Ian (Australia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 02:27:11 12/13/04 Mon In reply to: Dave (UK) 's message, "Until we meet again..." on 20:50:29 12/12/04 Sun >I often ask why “Political Science” is deemed a science, >when the subject of its study is so characteristically >unscientific? One must assume that scientific principles >formulate laws based on empirical evidence, and the test >of time. But there are three types of science, and your definition refers to just one of them. 1. Formal sciences (mathematics, logic, etc): these do not observe the empirical world at all, but just construct internally coherent systems. 2. Physical sciences (physics, biology, etc): these observe the empirical world "out there" and seek to explain it in greater detail. Our observation changes the thing we observe, but the physical world essentially is what it is and we can gather data about it. 3. Hermeneutic sciences (political science, literary theory, etc): these do not simply observe the empirical world that would exist whether humans were around or not, but set out to comprehend the rather more complex world of our own creations, which are very likely to change drastically from one historical moment to another. The fact that the object being studied changes over time does not make these hermeneutic fields any less scientific, just as mathematics is not rendered unscientific by its complete lack of reliance on empirical evidence. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |