posted by
owlfish at 11:55pm on 25/03/2009
Something that's been a minor irritation of mine for quite a long time is the careless use of the word "science". It often reflects carelessness or willful ignorance towards a large array of disciplines. People who aren't interested in science. Explanations which are full of science. An article about science in the newspaper. Usually, those explanations and articles aren't about science: they're about *particular* branches of scientific study. I doesn't help my my mind auto-glosses it as scientia, knowledge. Perhaps there are people out there who speak dismissively of all the "humanities" in a book, but I haven't knowingly met them.
So it's with particular regret that I heard it come out of my mouth tonight at the BSFA. A book with science in it. At the critical moment, my mind failed to provide words like "oceanography" or "geomorphology" or "seismology". I am ashamed.
So it's with particular regret that I heard it come out of my mouth tonight at the BSFA. A book with science in it. At the critical moment, my mind failed to provide words like "oceanography" or "geomorphology" or "seismology". I am ashamed.
(no subject)
:)
Ooh Geomorphology..
(no subject)
Math is the language of science. TV shows, popular books, all of them; No Math, No Science.
Over here in the states, math is anathema in any sort of mass media.
(no subject)
I go with the old Popper "must be falsifiable"--based on experimentation or investigation concerning hypothesis. I don't think this is the only way to define science, and it leaves out a great deal of what some people consider science (I don't think a lot of economics makes the cut, in that case), but it works for me.
I don't think that "science" as a categorical noun bothers me much as
(no subject)
Regarding the 'humanities' label, you do occasionally hear 'liberal arts' used dismissively.
(no subject)