Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Everyone knows (and no one disputes) the requirement for natural science theories – “predictive power”. An experiment carried out in compliance with all the requirements of the theory should show the result that the theory deductively assumed. The general purpose of the theory, of course, is to explain the World correctly, and its predictive power is intended to convince kakbe, to make sure that it explains the world correctly (so far, anyway).
The mistake of enlightened humanity is that the same requirement – predictive power – is recklessly extended to the social sciences, when they are descriptive sciences. An economist, for example (and they, the poor, get the most out of enlightened humanity), can not conduct any experiment-like a natural scientist. In Bacon's famous phrase,” we must make nature tell us about itself, “the main word is “force”; that is, a natural science experiment is a violation of nature. Thus, the social experiment involves violence against society-politicians will easily do this, but scientists are still not such idiots. In short, there are many reasons for this (both ethical, general scientific, and epistemological), and it is a long story to tell. But this does not mean that the social sciences do not provide Knowledge-very much so, and quite universal and valuable. And if you also remove mathematics from the same economy (this is not my opinion, if che, but for example Hayek), then it would be even better.
Everything has its place, and everything has its purpose. That's it!