Is social science atheistic or unscientific?

[Michaelangelica]

Why are we trying to separate philosophy and science here?

The sciences began with philosophical inquiry. Scientific findings would be essentially useless if separated from philosophical or theoretical interpretation.

You think so?

Could you give an example?

 

Originally Posted by charles brough View Post

It seems to me that all science is atheistic except the way social sciences are interpreted. In other words, social theory is, I claim to show, unscientific.

 

But just what is social theory and is it important? I say it is at least as important as all the other sciences because it encompasses all our secular beliefs. It interprets what our history says, deals with our evolution, and interprets what religion is. It is what is taught in school and shapes our whole world-view and way-of-thinking, “Secular Humanism,” which our parents teach their children and what shapes public opinion, shapes the media, and drives world affairs.

 

I say it is not scientific because subliminal public pressure causes social theorists to interpret social science data in ways that are the least offensive to the faithful.

Charles perhaps this is aUSA centric view? Would you say the same if you were Russian?

I don't see too many scientists trying to pander to the Catholic Church's genocidal attitude to condoms and AIDS transmission. (Nor do I see the Pope being taken to the world court for crimes against humanity -which is what should be happening!)

Darwin was concerned that he would upset the Church Establishment but i doubt that that motivates many scientists today. In his day the CofE church still decided who could go to university.

It was the breaking of the Church shackles on scientific inquiry into anatomy, money lending, astronomy, biblical scholarship (Protestantism?) in the 14th century that ushered in the age of scientific inquiry and exploration.

 

There does however seem to be a reluctance to accept new or iconoclastic research in many disciplines. (eg the heart has memories and a "brain").

Was it the 1960's or 70s when Psychiatrists cured a disease with the stoke of a pen by deciding homosexuality was not a disease (to the relief of many Gay psychiatrists):eek2:

There is very little science based evidence for a lot of surgery for example.

Dangerous drugs, chemicals medical practices, often take decades to change.

Nowadays with the pace of change (GWaming, environmental degradation, poverty, political unrest etc) we don't have the luxury of time any more.

 

Scientists say they believe scientific studies; but when it threatens their would view, salary, profession or status, they can be amazingly intransigent and closed minded.:naughty:

[Miranda]

You think so?

Could you give an example?

Yes. A great majority of famous philosophers were very much involved as scientists, mathmeticians or logicians. Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Galileo, Descartes...more modern examples may be Einstein and Dennett...the list goes on and on! Almost any philosopher is also a 'scientist' to some extent. Actually, modern science came out of the study of what used to be 'natural philosophy'. There is a necessary bandying between philosophy and the sciences that bind the two to one another, so separating them reflects a misunderstanding of the fields and their interconnectedness.

More simply speaking, when one has a theory, it makes sense to gather scientific support to further explicate the theory, right?

[lemit]

Is this a desparate ad for your book (that is not selling well) or are you now questioning what you have written and unsure?

 

Thank you for asking one of the two questions that have occurred to me.

 

 

The other question is about the title of this thread. It seems to me that if I were being asked to choose between the two options given, I'd expect to also see "All of the above," "None of the above," and "Other" as my options. Those options seem to have been picked out of a very strange hat, unless they are just there to focus attention on Charles's book.

 

It seems to me that the title constitutes a specious dialectic, but I'm not sure. Does anybody else see this? Am I missing something?

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. I suppose I could ask, in the spirit of the title of this thread, if that title constitutes a specious dialectic or a non sequitur. Well, which is it?