|
|
|
|
|
|
by ronaldx
4599 days ago
|
|
|
I agree with your definition mostly; however, I disagree with your conclusion. In this sense, economics is a science. Having a corpus of poor quality articles does not exclude you from being a science.
Having dissenting groups, and areas where existing evidence permits more than one conclusion, does not exclude you from being a science. Quite the opposite: if there was no dissent, there would be no science. |
|
|
That's true, but if all that exist are poor-quality articles, then it's not science -- there must be a corpus of testable, falsifiable theories beyond the chaff. This is why psychology isn't a science -- there are lots of poor-quality articles, and there's nothing else.
> if there was no dissent, there would be no science.
Nonsense. A scientific dissent must be accompanied by evidence, as does the thing being dissented against. Dissent per se means nothing in and of itself.