alt Hacker NewsYou're basically saying that scientist and "using systematic thought" should be synonymous. Why have two terms for the same thing? Whereas we definitely need a separate term for people who focus on empirical work, since that implies distinct properties of the kind of work. Mathematical and philosophical work simply aren't the same as scientific work, despite the non-zero overlap.
It's almost like there's a reason the common usage is the way it is.
Replies
iinnPP • 11/08/2024
The definition of science has changed quite a bit over time.
To frame the problem we would need to figure out what came first, the scientist or the definition.
➕ show 1 reply
Personally, I find the utility of including all systematic human pursuits as one lineage to be much greater than the utility of cordoning off empirical physical science. The latter is the status quo, often phrased along the lines of "for a long time everyone was silly and wishy-washy, and then science came around in the 1600s." For one thing this silences many great voices from the past, and for another I'd say it's behind the current crises around what exactly constitutes "human" or "social" sciences.
For example: the answer to "what is psychology" is a lot easier to productively answer if we start the search in 400 BCE instead of 1900 CE.