>> Investigate any way you like, form conclusions any way you 
>> like, call it Science.
> 
> Easy to spot: people using this method will use the uppercase :)
> 
>> Ask yourself, what method of science are you using :-)
> 
> Definitely the Popper version, which often makes other people angry
> because they think Science should be able to ... 

There's a funding problem, among others. Many of the (very useful)
disciplines that want to be (and usually are) named "science" are not
really science in this clearly defined meaning. But since the general
public (and government members count as that) need that label to fund it,
subtle distinctions like whether such a science is actually a science, and
if so, why, are usually considered heretic.

Think of medicine... most of it (i.e. most that has directly to do with
"health") is not science. We don't do (or only in a very restricted manner)
experiments with ourselves, and most of the criteria used to measure
"health" are by definition not objective. Similar for most of the social
disciplines -- they don't do the "Popper version": it is difficult to do
experiments with societies :)

Unluckily, the perceived need to call these disciplines "science" also
creates a need to leave out much of what is perceived as too far away from
the "Popper version" -- even though these areas would be a substantial part
of the underlying /discipline/. So they don't become real science, because
they can't really do it, and they don't do what they should do out of
self-restraint to scientifically-looking methods.

Gerhard
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist