What makes a science a science?
I have a personal struggle with order, and delight from watching how pieces of a puzzle perfectly fit in and bring solutions to the real world, like in the hard sciences and math. I am however, also baffled by the complexity of softer sciences, and the difficulty that discerning the multiplicity of factors involved brings.I cant seem to accept however, that political science, economics, psychology, and so, are really sciences. I mean, clearly they can be studied in more systematic ways than art or literature, but something tells me they fall short of the label of science. I mean, how many truly unassailable discoveries have been done on these fields in the past century or so? Have advancements in psychology been more a result of advancements on neuroscience (physical and more of a "hard science") and not of psychology itself? What about economics? If Keynessian economics and Classical models are truly able to be tested, why do we still have socialists and conservatives? Shouldnt this question be settled?
Comments (94)
The other key ingredient was Cartesian algebraic geometry. It was Descartes who made the crucial breakthrough allowing the conversion of geometry into algebra (and vice versa). Thus, a pair of simultaneous equations could now be solved either algebraically or graphically (at the intersection of two lines). The combination of the new scientific discoveries of Galileo and Newton, with the algebraic geometry of Descartes, were central to what would become modern scientific method.
I think this is key to understanding the reason that physics went on to become the paradigmatic 'hard science' of the modern age. The point was that the objects of physics, in particular, were just those kinds of objects which were maximally quantifiable, so to speak. By concentrating on just the attributes of any entity or system which were describable in physical terms, one could bring the rigour of mathematical physics to many kinds of phenomena, apart from those of physics. Hence the conviction that the ultimate facts about the universe are indeed those of physics, which is the central plank of scientific materialism.
The problem is, as you have sensed, that subjects such as economics, politics, and many others, are not so amenable to quantification. Economics is sometimes called 'the dismal science', but whether it is a science is, I think, questionable. Same with psychology, which would love to be a science, but has fundamental difficulties defining its basic subject matter. And so on. Underlying all of that, however, is the Enlightenment conviction in 'scientific progress', the march of science, which would like to bring it's light to bear on any and every conceivable subject.
That's really ironic. Psychology has changed part of its nature to make it more of a "hard" science as you've asked through the development of cognitive science and you deny that by defining cognitive science as something other than psychology. This is called begging the question. Psychology can't be a science because you define anything relating to behavior, perception, learning, etc., that's "hard" science as not psychology.
More generally, how about geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology? They are observational sciences rather than experimental, and not what I would call "hard."
It's a metaphysical question. Anything is a science which follows the scientific method. Now we can argue what that is. Still, I think it's a reasonable and, if not answerable, at least explorable question.
Scientifiic method - here's what Wikipedia says as a starting point:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, ajnd experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses". Experiments need to be designed to test hypotheses. Experiments are an important tool of the scientific method.
I don't necessarily agree with all of that.
I think we can lay out what it means to say "the scientific method," in a way that you and I can agree on. Maybe not, but we can probably at least agree on a lot of what's included. I just put the Wikipedia description up there as a first shot. You say it is not used all the time - well, when it's not used, it's not science. You say it is not unique to science. Well - if it is used, its fair to call it science. History, for example, seems to me to be as much a science as geology, paleontology, or evolutionary biology. If something progresses by using "whatever works" then one of too things is true. 1) Whatever works is part of the scientific method, or 2) it's not science.
Maybe my argument seems like a circular argument or begging the question, but it's not. My whole point rests on the judgment that you and I, or at least a consensus of interested and reasonably qualified parties, can agree on what the scientific method is.
Perhaps we can cay that, sure, the meaning science is fuzzy. But it's no too fuzzy to work with. But Darth has a point. The word has a certain magic. Those with no interest in the details of science still trust the expert culture that they don't understand. Just about any charlatan will want to claim what he is hawking is "science." Even religion is often debated as if God were an object to be proved or known through the "science" of meta-physics. What I'd call "crude" religion is a renegade pseudo-science, accepting the prestige of science while disdaining its method and limitations.
What I like about science is that it makes definite "prophecies." There is a risk in making a definite prophecy. One thinks for contrast of the end-of-the-world predictions that didn't come true. On the other hand, the "prophesied" recent eclipse occurred. I saw it with my own eyes. Of course I've also flown through the air in a winged tube.
I love science. It had a big part in the development of my intellect. Maybe I could even say my personality too. Then again, I come from a family of engineers. But - there is no magic in it for me. There's no more magic than a hammer has. I don't disagree that people misuse the word, but that's really irrelevant for this discussion.
Quoting t0m
To me, discussions about capital "G" God are not metaphysics. There either is an intelligent being who created the universe and rules our lives or there's not. It's appropriate to deal with that as a scientific question, although I'm not really interested in that aspect of god. Most such discussions - from both sides of the question - lack rigor or sense. I gave my daughter a copy of "The God Delusion" because I thought it was such a good example of bad thinking. It makes me laugh and it makes me angry.
My vision of god is metaphysics. Thinking of the universe as living or conscious makes sense to me. The value of metaphysics is whether or not it's useful, not if it's true. To me, the idea of god is as useful as science. I think science without an acknowledgement that the universe is as much human as it is physical reflects a fatal flaw in much scientific thought. Smug scientists sneering at religion are missing half the story.
I really enjoy discussions with you. I'm glad you joined the forum.
A sure indication that the participants don't understand the subject.
Whereas, science is all about objects.
Thanks for the kind words. I also enjoy discussions with you.
My vision of god is also metaphysics. Roughly speaking, the universe is brute fact that is conscious of itself as such, through us. The "scientific image" is a small part of reality as a whole. Personality or life as we know it is a "primordial" fact. To call our usual experience an illusion is to privilege a mere tool (the scientific image [Sellars]) over the context from which the tool emerged and in which it is useful and justified in the first place. In short, I respect science and even work in science but don't like scientism. So I also thinking sneering scientists are missing (at least) half the story. When they play a being meta-physicians, they often look naive. Feyerabend saw the threat of this ideology.
I'm not a religious person, but I still maintain what I implied earlier, that asserting God as an empirical cheapens God. So if I were a traditional theist, I'd probably approach it as Kierkegaard did. When theists try to prove God empirically, they've already surrendered to the scientific worldview. If God is simply an object of knowledge, a matter for debate, then He's only technology. In short, I can respect a traditional theist, but I personally think they "contaminate" religion when they understand it as a sort of science or objective knowledge.
I'm inclined to agree, though that is of course just my opinion. There is both stupid and profound religion out there, as I see it.
I agree with everything you say in this paragraph, especially "the universe is brute fact that is conscious of itself as such, through us." That's exactly what I was trying to say. Or expressed differently:
The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.
It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.
I'm ok with that, as long as you include those supposedly speaking for science as people who don't understand.
I agree. Also - they'll always lose the fight.
I think so to. But let's say we somehow find an alien or species of aliens who created humanity. Will we worship them? The only God worth worshiping, as far as I can see, must possess human virtues. A demi-urge, etc., would just be a fact like the sun without human virtues. We might fear him or it and obey him or it in our fear. But would this be religion?
On the other hand, human virtue exists already. We all have an image of it, even if this image varies from person to person. We already worship "God" when we revere the virtuous. That's how I see it. And that's a God who needs our help and even a God we participate in. Of course this is just the incarnation myth taken more literally than usual.
I see it in a way that seems more practical, concrete than that to me. I see what we call "virtue" as a reflection of the fact that we were created, by god or evolution, as animals that like each other.
We probably mean about the same thing. Maybe the word "revere" doesn't get the tone right. For example, there's a certain kind of man that I especially respect. That's also the kind of man I want to be. As I have lived, loved, and suffered, my idea of what a good man is has evolved. Sometimes trying to live up to a notion of virtue reveals its deficiencies as a notion of virtue. This is a crisis that summons our creativity. Or maybe we just search the books for a new story of virtue that fits our new situation better.
We don't usually throw out a notion altogether. That might literally be insanity. But we modify the notion. So the notion steers our experience which steers the notion. That is my demystification of Hegelian dialectic. As far as "absolute knowledge" goes, the version of it in this demystification would just be a stable or tranquil compatibility between the notion of virtue and the lifestyle. After a while of staying up on the horse without falling off, a person might feel that they've mostly figured things out, at least where their own lives are concerned. But for me this does not necessitate projecting one's personal solution or equilibrium as a truth for all. (No need to hide it, either.)
Anyway, that's my general vision of spirituality. On the level of detail, some people's image of virtue will involve a relationship with the traditional God, maybe not eating pork, social activism, reading certain books, getting rich, staying poor and honest, etc. Contemplating this "general structure" from a certain distance is a big part of philosophy for me. I like to zoom out.
This came to mind when I read that. It may or may not be relevant, but I like to get a chance to show my erudition:
Most of the change we think we see in life
Is due to truths being in and out of favour. 110
As I sit here, and oftentimes, I wish
I could be monarch of a desert land
I could devote and dedicate forever
To the truths we keep coming back and back to.
So desert it would have to be, so walled 115
By mountain ranges half in summer snow,
No one would covet it or think it worth
The pains of conquering to force change on.
Scattered oases where men dwelt, but mostly
Sand dunes held loosely in tamarisk 120
Blown over and over themselves in idleness.
Sand grains should sugar in the natal dew
The babe born to the desert, the sand storm
Retard mid-waste my cowering caravans—
That poem makes me cry every time I read it. Robert Frost. "The Black Cottage" I really love that poem. I've quoted that on the forum before and I'll do it again.
It's all great, but I especially like that part.
Yes, back and back to those beautiful old truths in their newness.
E. R. Doherty.
I think quantitative psychology has yielded results that give us insights into our own mentality. For instance, most religious people are against abortion or education level is associated with atheism, etc. These ''discoveries'' are, assuredly, mathematical - statistical, to be specific. So, I think some level (satisfactory or not, depends on your view I guess) mathematical precision, rather approximation, is possible in psychology.
The most important thing to me, given the dim view of psychology as suggested in the OP, is that psychology may be a soft science but it is NOT pseudoscience. Or is it?
This is most definitely question begging. Just because I make a really good burrito doesn't mean I use the "scientific method" to make it. Just because a fisherman catches many fish doesn't mean she uses the "scientific method" to catch them.
Furthermore, by ascribing whatever works to a scientific method that is exclusively scientific then we're left with no way to actually criticize science. Science becomes this infallible source of knowledge, where whatever doesn't work apparently isn't science. Yet clearly this is false. There can be bad, poor, shitty science just as much as good science. Actually most science is bad science, with faulty assumptions, poor methodology or whatever.
A lot of the ways "Science" goes about "sciencing" is not very different from other activities. It's just that these scientific fields have special equipment and have the public image of being a dispassionate search for truth.
Most definitely, absolutely, positively, completely is not begging the question. I am claiming that the definition of science is activity that follows the scientific method. I have also claimed that reasonable people can reach a pretty clear consensus on what the scientific method is. Obviously, there's room for disagreement, but I bet you and I can come up with something that's agreeable to both of us. If you can't give me a competing definition that's as clear and direct as the one I've given, the result is that "science" doesn't mean anything.
Quoting darthbarracuda
There are many effective ways to figure out how the world works that aren't science. The great majority of our learning and problem solving activities are not science. I'm not saying "if it works, its science." I'm saying "if it follows the scientific method it's science."
Quoting darthbarracuda
Of course that's true. The scientific method was not created out of thin air. It's not magic. It is a systemization of the ways that people have always solved problems and looked for knowledge.
Right. I don't think science really means anything, aside of a vague and mysterious group of smart people using instruments to get data about something, usually accompanied with a romantic image of spiritual purpose or whatever. Words unify people and make it easier to communicate.
If I had to decide on a criterion of science, it would be that it has some agreed upon set of measurements and field-specific methodology. Not that there is some specific methodology that science has that not-science doesn't.
Quoting T Clark
But if it's not exclusive to, not originating with science, then why call it the scientific method?
My quote is just a small part of the whole poem. It's all wonderful.
The systemization is the heart of the matter. Science is a systematic search for knowledge that follows a specific, defined set of rules and algorithms. I haven't thought this through - but I guess there are probably other systematic methods for searching for knowledge.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I don't agree. I think it's an important and meaningful idea.
I don't really disagree with any of that, at least for physics, chemistry, and some biology. I think it might leave out observational sciences like geology. Stephen Jay Gould has some good essays about what the scientific method means in an observational context.
As for the original post and rickyk95's question about psychology, economics, etc. - They aspire to be what you have described. I think sometimes that's a good idea - e.g. cognitive science. Sometimes it's probably wrong headed.
Agreed, but to me this sentence is omitting making explicit what the vital essence of all empirical sciences is : empirical data. In theoretical maths one can concoct infinite mathematical universes if the will and intelligence is there for so doing (invent new axioms and, using these as rules, make all the novel algorithm you want). Especially as regards the empirical sciences, this is all however meaningless unless it happens to be accordant to our body of experience derived, empirical data.
Picking on this omission because it’s a hefty pet peeve of mine: that many in the general community place maths before experience in their understanding of the empirical sciences.
My statement does not really put any meat on the bones of my definition of the scientific method. My "specific, defined set of rules and algorithms," is not described. I agree, one of, or maybe the primary, requirement for science is a dependence on the collection and interpretation of empirical data.
Science is systematic common sense. I'm with @T Clark.
The behavioral sciences have taken some deserved hits to their reputations lately. Valid results should be duplicable, for instance. A survey found that many psychology results could not be duplicated. As it happens, a lot of research in the biological sciences (which are "harder" than behavioral science) hasn't been duplicated, either. Good science is hard whether it's physics or economics.
Human beings are one of the main problems in behavioral science. Studies of behavior in rats and pigeons have produced solid, replicable findings about how rat and pigeon' brains work. Many of those findings are applicable to human beings. If we conducted research on human beings in exactly the same way we conduct research on rats and pigeons, we might nail down some answers to difficult questions. That kind of research has (quite properly) been ruled out of bounds.
Even a relatively small ability to think; even limited freedom of will; and that softest and most elusive topic of research -- mind -- all get in the way.
Take for instance research into cooperative behavior in dogs and monkeys. Researchers discovered that both dogs and monkeys pay attention to the rewards their cooperating partners are getting. If some dogs see that they are getting no rewards (while other dogs are), they stop cooperating with the researcher. If monkeys see that their cooperating partners are getting better rewards than they are getting (pieces of apple instead of pieces of cabbage) they stop cooperating. Unexpected end of experiment. What the researchers discovered is that their captive subjects were capable of feeling cheated, and would then not play any more.
It is worth noting that economists generally can not predict economic crashes. Or, at least, that is my understanding. They can't, or they haven't. Lots of people -- economists and kibitzers -- thought that housing prices were absurdly high in 2006-2007, but nobody predicted near economic collapse and a credit freeze in 2008.
Geologists can't really "experiment" with plate tectonics and earthquakes because the subjects -- these big continental and oceanic plates -- are way too big. They can observe them, however, and make predictions. The world economy is a similar problem: it's too big, too many moving parts, and all those parts are always moving.
A lot of psychology research looks like slop to start with, but even if it is very, very good, there is still the problem that human beings can, and regularly do deliberately misrepresent themselves, can fake cooperation, lie, dissemble, refuse to cooperate, and so on -- all of which undermines the validity of psychological research. Any study which involves self-reporting is practically doomed.
Studies of sexual behavior (like the use of condoms, frequency of sexual encounters, preferred sexual activities, etc.) that are based on self-reporting are notoriously unreliable. As it happens, it is quite difficult to observe all of these behaviors. Most people don't like having a note-taker in their bedroom while they hare having sex. Where observation has occurred, the findings are often quite different than self-reporting.
To me this is a pretty good way to communicate the beauty of science. You can only be wrong in the present if you committed yourself in the past to a risky prediction. You were right in that commitment and risk. A scientist lets his theories do his dying for him.
In other words, the scientist (ideally) takes the risk of clarity. Popper noted that the Freudian psychoanalysts and Marxists whom he knew could always find a way to interpret anything as a confirmation of their theory. Because these theories were indestructible in that sense, they were also trivial or empty in another sense.
The prediction is either wrong or right. The gadget does or does not work. This is (ideally) publicly accessible. It is exoteric, naked.
One of things I love about Popper was his acknowledgement of the irrational, creative element in science. The source of the hypothesis doesn't matter. Science (as he conceives it) is a source-independent criterion for hypotheses. I think the criterion itself is justified pragmatically and aesthetically. As Darth notes, science is heroic. There's an asceticism or warrior-like courage in making ideas specific enough (usually quantitative) for refutation and abandonment.
Mathematics is certainly not an empirical science. And it has a different notion of evidence. (Not just proof but also counterexample.) Even through the first half of the twentieth century, authors routinely referred to "the science of mathematics" and "the science of logic". Maybe it is worth calling attention to a shared sense of rigor.
Holy smokes, that sounds great!! Actually, I agree with everything you said except for this.
Definition of "clarity" - Expressing what you mean in a way that makes it obvious you’re wrong
An attempt to create an approximate model of the reality we find ourselves in that can be used to more precisely explain observations and make reliable prediction. The aim is to use refined and proven methods for doings so. These methods can vary across different braches of science but some have proven themselves reliable so there are many which overlap.
Sounds good to me. I don't have any disagreements with what you have written.
Yeah, well. I was talking big, but I like my intimate life pretty vanilla pudding. Maybe that's not the right image.
I overlooked replying to this earlier. Yes, those are great lines. I've read the same Mitchell translation. I was just looking it over again, here: http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html (for others, since I know you have a copy.)
[quote=Tao]
Do you want to improve the world?
I don't think it can be done.
The world is sacred.
It can't be improved.
If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.
There is a time for being ahead,
a time for being behind;
a time for being in motion,
a time for being at rest;
a time for being vigorous,
a time for being exhausted;
a time for being safe,
a time for being in danger.
The Master sees things as they are,
without trying to control them.
She lets them go their own way,
and resides at the center of the circle.
[/quote]
Those are qualitative assessments, not quantitative and that would be statistics not psychology.
Most religious people are against abortion: This is a quantitative assessment isn't it?
Psychology has to depend on statistics, no?
Most is not a quantitative unit of measurement nor is it the variable of interest.
And name a science that does not use statistics.
What if I said 90% of people with a college education don't believe in God. Can I rephrase 90% as ''most''?
Quoting Jeremiah
So, psychology is a science then, right?
Still not the variable of interest. Understanding that difference is a common exam question in intro stats courses. Everyone always makes the same mistake you are making, but it is categorical.
Psychology is generally considered a science and I have no good reason to disagree with that.
Ok. What would count as a good question of inquiry in psychology?
I have no interest in defending psychology as a science nor do I care if you do or do not consider it one. I suggest you Google it.
Jeremiah's point is just this: what you are counting here, your data, is categorical rather than itself being quantitative. The fact that you counted doesn't change that. Suppose your data was height: then you could talk about the average height of your population, the average deviation, and so on. What about here? Is there an average belief in God? How much of your population has an unusually big belief in God (more than two or three standard deviations above the mean)?
I may be wrong but how else can we quantify psychology? Can we measure thoughts or emotions in any a way other than how I described it?
I was afraid you would ask that.
Yes, I would think so, but it's not an area I know. Even without getting into neuroscience, there's various ways you might use biometrics, for instance. Personally I'm really interested in this sort of thing, which is in the neighborhood anyway.
However, these types of statistical data can form the basis of qualitative analysis. For instance, knowing most college educated people favor atheism can be used to field theories on why this is the case. Perhaps then, predictions, confirmation or disconfirmation will follow.
Quoting Jeremiah
Can you give some examples? Physics, chemistry are entirely mathematical. Biology is following suit, with some difficulty I must say.
Species of fish, different types of force and even Newton's Laws of Motion are categories. I honestly don't think you know the difference between the two. Infinity is not quantitative, it is not even a number, it is a concept. You can not measure infinity.
Here are some examples of the quantitative: kilograms & meters per second squared. The actual meaningful measurements themselves. If we say F=ma then that is a quantitative statement, but if we categorize that as Newton's 2nd Law, then that is a categorical statement.
I'm getting a bit lost, but what about this - A very thin layer of material that contains high concentrations of iridium has been found throughout the world in deposits that are dated to about the same age - 65 million years. Iridium is rare on earth, but is found much more often in meteorites. From these observations, geologists, biologists, and astronomers have come to believe that the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other evolutionary lineages 65 million years ago was probably primarily caused by the impact of an asteroid.
That's one of the most interesting and important things I can imagine in terms of understanding our world, but it's value isn't related to any quantitative data.
Can you take another pass at this? I don't disagree with anything here but I'm not sure what the connection is ...
As I said, I'm getting lost, but one of the major points seems to be the difference between quantitative and qualitative data. Well - the data from the iridium layer is definitely not quantitative. I guess it's not really qualitative either. It's observational, descriptive. Also fascinating and illuminating. It's a type of science that is completely different from chemistry and physics. There are different criteria for valid data and different standards for truth. I think about the difference between the detection of gravitational waves and the Higgs Boson and the classification of organisms that started with Linnaeus' system, travelled on through Darwin's identification of a mechanism, on through Mendel and genetics, and now on to plotting the genomes of organisms.
I don't think the physics model of science works can be applied to some very important and interesting aspects of the world.
I think I'm getting it.
If it looked like someone was saying the data have to be quantitative or you're not doing science, no, nobody was saying that, I think. Analyzing your data (of whatever kind) quantitatively is almost preposterously helpful, but maybe also not an absolute requirement. (For instance, in your cool example about iridium, measuring and quantifying the natural incidence of iridium, and comparing it to the observed incidence in the magic layer, is crucial.)
Don't get hung up on what is "qualitative" and what is "quantitative" too much, it is really only important to make such distinctions when you are doing statistical modeling or something similar. People just grasp on to the word quantitative because they think it makes them sound scientific or more official, but they all too often make the mistake of assuming it means numbers are in in the area.
If you can't separate them out, just talk about things plainly like you normally would, you may not realize it but you were already taught the difference just by learning how to talk and do basic math. You know what time is and you know what colors are, you don't need extra labels just to talk about those things.
I thought that was what I did in my asteroid discussion.
Well, going back to the OP and carrying forward, I do think some people were saying that.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Of course there were quantitative measurements - concentrations of iridium, depths below the ground surface, the locations of borings, but those were completely subservient to the brute fact of observation - digging a hole and looking for the telltale signs of the layer associated with the impact.
Here's another one. I saw this on 60 Minutes - a news show in the US that I have been watching since 1968. They interviewed psychologists who were studying moral development in young children. Then they showed video of 3 to 4 month old babies interacting with their mothers, the scientists, and stuffed animals. They showed the babies one of the animals and let them hold it. Then they acted out scenes between that animal and others. In some cases, the other animals behaved aggressively toward the first one. In those cases, when they handed the babies the other animals, they wouldn't hold them. When the other animal had played with the first animal, the babies would hold it. Three month old babies have an understanding at some level of human agency and right and wrong. That was one of the most fascinating things I have ever seen and it changed the way I feel about human nature forever. @rickyk95 - tell me psychology isn't a real science. Tell me something more important than that.
If so, I ignored it. ;-)
Nevertheless, "being as rational as possible" is a fundamental property of being "scientific", (though not a blueprint)and a good definition if the word is to have most power for good. In this manner, it is perfectly possible to take a scientific approach to[s]just about anything[/s] a very wide range of analysis; lab coats and test tubes are not essential. Stuff about observation and experiment, prediction, being systematic are merely instructions on how to be rational in certain applicable situations.
Only if "rationality" is not subject to Occam's Razor, I suggest.
Occam's Razor itself is a reasoned suggested approach which is not based on direct hypothesis testing; instead it is nothing but a guideline or a rule of thumb.
Also, the use of intuition might well be deemed to be "reason-enableed", or even just "reasonable" I think, and therefore rational.
No that's got nothing to do with it. A rational argument is simply one where the conclusion follows from the premises. It may or may not concern a subject which is amenable to scientific analysis.
The root of 'rationality' is 'ratio', which 'proportion' or 'measurement'. Science needs to make predictions which can be tested against evidence and observations. Those predictions comprise theories and hypotheses, which generally have to be able to be measured against some outcome or observation. That is what you mean by 'rationality', I think. However, it's important to understand that a great many important scientific discoveries have been stumbled on by accident or by serendipity, or as a consequence of looking for something else altogether. Sometimes a scientist will start out with some hypothesis in mind, only to find that she has to jettison it as a consequence of the experiment which was designed to confirm it. That's all part of scientific method - it includes rationality, but many other things besides.
In the social sciences, psychology and medicine, in particular, that the replication crisis has reared its ugly head. The upshot of that often is that, try the same experiment elsewhere, and you'll get contrary results. This is particularly so with psychological and social sciences.
I'm not sure how that relates to the particular example I was giving? Are you expressing skepticism? I haven't read the related articles, so I can't comment.
That just means the soft sciences are harder.
I've been making the point about observational science. The study I was describing is more like natural history - Jane Goodall with the chimps, Sigourney Weaver with the gorillas, even Charles Darwin with the finches and pigeons. Describing behavior, not theorizing. Sure, theorizing will come later and there's plenty of room for bad observations and unsupportable theories.
That's why Popper is so great. He includes the "irrational"/creative source of hypotheses. Science is a criterion for these hypotheses than can comfortably ignore their source. It doesn't matter if we get a great scientific hypothesis from a random-symbol generator. Its greatness will be established by its survival of various attempts to falsify it.
As (I think) Planck commented, scientific progress is made 'one funeral at a time'.
I think this is very true. Such ideas are the cultural or spiritual "bodies" of individuals. We have to face the "death" of these crystallizations of ourselves in order to remain open to the new. Or rather that's what openness is. A "being-toward-death" is a "being-towards-birth." A total identification with any particular idea is a death-like hardening or freezing of this process. We get tired of death-birth and try to lock down the process in terms of a final/ultimate vision. It's easy to forgive/understand individual thinkers for this. It's not easy to stay strong in the face of aging or stay humble in the face of success.
If the science gods convene tomorrow and then emerge from a room and say in front of a waiting press corps, "Beginning now, psychology is officially a hard science. In addition, quantum physics is no longer considered science. After careful consideration we have concluded that quantum physics is closer to philosophy", does it change anything intellectually?
It might rearrange things politically, economically and socially. It might change who gets the most funding, the most prestige, the most fame, etc. But does it in any way change what we know and our ability to acquire knowledge and understand the world?
What difference does it make if something is or is not considered to be science?
I don't think of any branch of mathematics as a science. Do you think I should?
There is no doubt in my mind that statistics is a science and if you studied it more I have little doubt you would disagree.
Are all branches of math sciences, or only statistics? Although it certainly seems different in detail than other branches, it seems pretty much the same in kind. Feels pretty mathy to me.
It falls under the umbrella of what is know as a data science. Statistics aims at proper scientific methods for the collection and analysis of data. This analysis can be on observational data or data collected from an experiment. It uses hypothesis testing and modeling to help researchers reach a conclusion.
Not sure I buy that, but my familiarity with statistics is not enough to make a case. Maybe fdrake will poke his nose in and provoke a better conversation than I can provide.
I have never met anyone on the statistician's journey to disagree with the idea it is a science.
But I understand your reservation. On my first day in intro to statistics the instructor called it a science and I challenged him to prove it, so right there in class we looked up the common definition of science and talked about it. That class was mostly math, but as you push on it is clear that you are learning how to apply the scientific method on empirical data using statistical methods.
I propose, regarding rationality per se
1) that there are situations where using the razor is rational.
2) that there are situations where using intuition is rational.
3) that there are situations where more than one rational solution can be found with no easy means of picking the best
"Science happens when rationality can be used to arrive at a unique and "best" solution."