|
Post by cjm on Aug 28, 2015 17:36:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Aug 30, 2015 8:21:33 GMT
For me, 'science' is not an adjective that can be applied to any of the humanities anyway. The disposition of the practitioners may well be a scientific one, but the subjects of their investigations are never amenable to even a rudimentary scientific description.
I am quite willing to admit that not all knowledge is scientific, though - that there are huge swathes of real and useful knowledge outside the reach of science. This is a position often denied by both the practitioners of actual science, and the practitioners of the humanities, who fall into the trap of believing that they need to be scientific in order to be relevant.
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Sept 2, 2015 12:37:27 GMT
For me, 'science' is not an adjective that can be applied to any of the humanities anyway. The disposition of the practitioners may well be a scientific one, but the subjects of their investigations are never amenable to even a rudimentary scientific description. Sort of Derrida's view as well. He says that the more the Human Sciences try and do away with philosophy, the more they find themselves in philosophy! Granted, the way he gets there is not easy to follow. He also is a staunch reader of Nietzsche, reading him differently from the mainstream interpretation. I just add this last bit because I recall you raving about the mad man some time back!
|
|