Narrow (Anglo-Saxon) vs broad (European) defintion of science

[Humes fork]

From what I understand, the definition of science dominant in English-speaking countries tend to be limited to the natural sciences. Sociology, history, economics, these are not sciences, but humanities or social sciences.

The continental European definition of science is broader, as it includes the social sciences and plenty of the humanities as well (not quite sure about the line between social sciences and the humanities in the first place).

Let's consider history. In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=225124) it is assumed history is not science. Swedish Wikipedia (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia) however thinks it is a scientific subject. Swedish popular science magazines have articles on historical events from time to time.

Are these just different ways of labelling stuff, or has this difference some sort of deeper, conceptual basis? Is any system better than the other?

Perhaps I'm biased here, but I think the European system makes more sense.

[afree87]

This is especially confusing when you are talking about "social science"--- SSRN has a Humanities section but it's not fleshed out.

[wollery]

The scientific method can be applied to a broad range of subjects, including most of what we term 'the humanities'. This does not, however, make them science subjects.

I think it's largely a labelling problem, although there is an essence of people working in the social sciences and humanities trying to improve the profile and image of their subjects.

[Aepervius]

If I may say , most "hard science" type , what correspond to the anglo-saxon definition, usually sneer, disregard or laugh at the social science being defined as "science". As far as i can tell the appellation social science as science came by the social science guy themselves. A bit like if homeopathy, acupuncture and other woo proponent were starting to call themselves alternative medicine, nobody in their right mind knowing what medicine entails as process would really accept them as "medicine" despite calling themselves as alternative-medicine. Same here really, they can call it social science all they want, but I do think they are misusing the word.

[Complexity]

Perhaps I'm biased here, but I think the European system makes more sense.


I disagree.

[wollery]

I disagree.Good for you.

[RobDegraves]

I'm a western historian and I consider it a science.

[geni]

While history itself isn't a science there are some areas such as bits of archaeology that are fairly scientific. For example experimental archaeology certianly tries to be.

[RobDegraves]

While history itself isn't a science there are some areas such as bits of archaeology that are fairly scientific.

Just curious... how is history different from science?

[Humes fork]

While history itself isn't a science there are some areas such as bits of archaeology that are fairly scientific. For example experimental archaeology certianly tries to be.

Uhm that's what the disagreement is about. By European definitions, it certainly is a science.

[Psi Baba]

If the word science is being used to mean simply "knowledge," then one could argue that those other topics (humanities, history, etc) are sciences in that they are accumulations of knowledge. However, since science is really a process and not merely an accumulation of knowledge, and it is doubtful that the usual processes of science can be applied to the those other subjects in the same ways that they are applied to the hard sciences.

[Beelzebuddy]

Just curious... how is history different from science?
Experiments are only repeatable if you don't understand them.

[wollery]

Just curious... how is history different from science?Explain how you run a controlled experiment in History.

[TubbaBlubba]

Sociology and economics are definitely sciences, even if experiments can be difficult to run.

History... Parts of it like archaeology certainly involves science. But beside that, most of it is study and conjecture after the fact, isn't it? That's not really what science is about.

That's not to say history is less important than "hard sciences".

[Pulvinar]

Explain how you run a controlled experiment in History.

Seems to me that any controlled experiment, once it's been run, is an experiment in history. You have to look for the unintentional ones.

[Humes fork]

Explain how you run a controlled experiment in History.

So you don't think the evolution of humanity is a scientific subject?

[Beelzebuddy]

So you don't think the evolution of humanity is a scientific subject?
Quite hard to control for confounding variables, and the n is abysmal.

[wollery]

So you don't think the evolution of humanity is a scientific subject?You didn't answer the question.

[WhatRoughBeast]

So you don't think the evolution of humanity is a scientific subject?

The biological evolution of humanity is hardly historical in the sense that previous posts have used the term.

If you are speaking about the cultural evolution of humanity, well, the documentation is sketchy.

So which sense of the term are you using? Or are you being deliberately confusing?

[RobDegraves]

Explain how you run a controlled experiment in History.

Experiments in history?

Carbon dating.
Reconstruction.
Textual analysis.

Etc.

Do you really think no science goes into historical research?

[WhatRoughBeast]

Explain how you run a controlled experiment in History.

The same way you run a controlled experiment in paleontology, archeaology, or astronomy.

Examine a collection of data, and attempt to predict what comes next in the data.

The technical term is retrodiction.

[Stomatopoda]

The broader you stretch the definition, the less meaningful it becomes. If you're going to call anything with any scientific aspects a science, then you make the term apply to practically everything.

If History is a science, then what isn't?

[Roboramma]

Explain how you run a controlled experiment in History.


Aren't you an astronomer? Seems like an odd question.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The scientific method can be applied to a broad range of subjects, including most of what we term 'the humanities'. This does not, however, make them science subjects.

I think it's largely a labelling problem, although there is an essence of people working in the social sciences and humanities trying to improve the profile and image of their subjects.
This^

Science is the methodology, not the subject. The same distinction issue comes when you talk about engineering which is not a science. But certainly one applies the scientific method to engineering.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Explain how you run a controlled experiment in History.There is more to science than experiments. One applies the scientific method when analyzing historical documents and when analyzing the historical significance of archeology findings. Those would be examples of applying science to the study of history.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The broader you stretch the definition, the less meaningful it becomes. If you're going to call anything with any scientific aspects a science, then you make the term apply to practically everything.

If History is a science, then what isn't?That's why applying the scientific method to a subject isn't exactly the same as calling something a science.

The science of medicine actually means one applies the scientific method to answering medical questions. A CT scan is medicine but it isn't 'a science'.

[Humes fork]

You didn't answer the question.

I did. You can't run experiments in human evolution either. You can't recast Lucy in an experiment, or the migration out of Africa.

[wollery]

I did.No, you didn't.

The question was "Explain how you run a controlled experiment in History." A question that you singularly failed to answer. Instead you used the equivalent of "well neither does your dad".

You can't run experiments in human evolution either. You can't recast Lucy in an experiment, or the migration out of Africa.You can run experiments in human evolution, by measuring the shifts in the human genetic code and comparing genotypes between different ethnic groups. These genetic shifts, compared to theoretical models, can show when specific ethnic groups separated, and these can be used to show a timeline for the migrations of each group.

The difference between history and evolution is that historians can lie, and sometimes there's no way to know whether or not they did. Genes don't lie, they just are.

[Complexity]

I'm a western historian and I consider it a science.


I don't think history is a science.

Some scientific techniques can be used in history, but that doesn't make the field of history a science.

In a similar way, economics (misnamed 'the dismal science') is not a science. Like many 'soft sciences' (which are either proto-sciences or non-sciences), practitioners of economics loves to try to use sophisticated mathematical tools to address fuzzy ideas in the hopes that it will be thought of as a hard science like physics (or in the hopes that no one will notice that the emperor has no clothes).

[CapelDodger]

No, you didn't.

The question was "Explain how you run a controlled experiment in History." A question that you singularly failed to answer. Instead you used the equivalent of "well neither does your dad".

I don't think it requires controlled experiments to make, for instance, cosmology or climatology scientific pursuits. A lack of them doesn't make History not a science. I don't think it is, but that's a different matter.

[CapelDodger]

Do we all agree that Political Science is right out?

[wollery]

Do we all agree that Political Science is right out?Not just out but an oxymoron.

[RobDegraves]

Holy cows there's a lot of statements by people who don't seem to know much about historical research.

@wollery

The difference between history and evolution is that historians can lie, and sometimes there's no way to know whether or not they did. Genes don't lie, they just are.

Incorrect.

Just like any science, if there isn't sufficient proof, your theory does not get accepted. There are a lot of scientists who lied, and were later exposed. Same with history. The burden of proof is the same and the consequences are the same.

Give me an example of a historian who lied and was never exposed. I can find lots of scientists who lied. Several who were not exposed for a very long time.

How about being specific with your statements rather than just trying to pass your opinion off as fact.


@Complexity

Some scientific techniques can be used in history, but that doesn't make the field of history a science.

Again... assertion is not the same as confirmation. History uses the same principles as all science. The techniques are different but so are the techniques between physics and astronomy.

How about showing exactly how history is unscientific?

[Stomatopoda]

Give me an example of a historian who lied and was never exposed.

Isn't that like asking a casino for an example of someone who cheated and was never caught?

[TubbaBlubba]

In a similar way, economics (misnamed 'the dismal science') is not a science. Like many 'soft sciences' (which are either proto-sciences or non-sciences), practitioners of economics loves to try to use sophisticated mathematical tools to address fuzzy ideas in the hopes that it will be thought of as a hard science like physics (or in the hopes that no one will notice that the emperor has no clothes).

Economists make testable predictions and revise their theories accordingly. There is a lot of undue political baggage in it, sure, but I do think it can be called a science. The main problem is the difficulty of running experiments, but it's far from impossible.

[epepke]

I worked at a cross-disciplinary research institute with scientists from all over the place: the US, Europe, Asia, Russia, South America, and even Micronesia. There wasn't much difference between scientists from different cultures, except that the Russians seemed a bit more gullible. So I don't think there's a deeper conceptual difference.

[Ysidro]

Ah, academic snobbery. How I've missed you.

[Dani]

I'm no hard, soft or pseudo scientist, but here goes my two cents:

Science is a process. What is scientific about astronomy, palenteology or physics isn't the areas of study themselves, but the way they are conducted, the methodology applied in the research. If it's falsifiable, it's scientific.

What happens is that different areas of study deal with different types of evidence. The areas of study which involve human interaction (social sciences) seem to deal with a great amount of uncontrolled variables and/or limited evidential support in order to test the likelihood of different competing hypotheses. This makes these conjectures more fallible, less certain, but not less scientific if we stick to the criteria of falsifiability. We commonly regard them with a lesser degree of certainty, but that's not at all icompatible with labelling them as sciences, since science provides provisional theories, not absolute certainty, as the history of science shows. It's just that, often depending on the area of study, some theories are, based on the evidence and the likelihood of competing hypotheses, more provisional and conjectural than others.