HPSC: A science or a social science? (1 Viewer)

[asianese]

Science is the study of things around us. It involves describing and understanding 'why' things occur, how they occur and when.

History and philosophy of science is the study of, precisely, the history and philosophy... of science. We usually categorise history and philosophy to be arts or social science: the study of human behaviour and human thinking.

With these broad definitions, could the 'history and philosophy of science' be considered a 'science' in the sense of the study of physical, chemical and biological phenomena and their interaction?

Discuss.

 

[Nooblet94]

No.

End of discussion.

 

[asianese]

If you aren't going to make a sensible and constructive comment that have been thought out or researched, please refrain from posting on these forums.

 

[OzKo]

I think any form of meta-analysis, especially on something as broad as science has an inherent value. To properly analyse how a specific field of science has developed generally does require at least a background understanding of that science itself, otherwise it is difficult to ascertain anything of true value.

As a science itself, I don't think it's a natural fit within most definitions of 'science'.

 

[jenslekman]

Personally, I think this subject is a science because history and philosophy allows us to examine the core essence of how modern science was developed - and without this perspective, obviously modern science wouldn't be what it is today. It is important that scientists of the future - scientists examining physical, chemical and biological phenomena - take subjects such as these to understand how their work influences and reflect the values of modern science. As for Nooblet94, I assume that you're an ignorant first year science student. Please do your research before posting on these discussion forums.

 

[asianese]

The question was about the categorisation of HPSC as a science itself.

 

[OzKo]

If you're defining science as:



then you would say HPS is indeed a science because it does these things. A huge part of the philosophical is the 'why' and the historical is the 'how' and 'when'. Though you could say some of it is more about the practice of science rather than organisms themselves which is what would draw the line between it being science and being a social science.


Also hugely depends on what course within HPS you're doing. Sociology of Science would come more under social science, as would the ethics course. However, History of the Biomedical Sciences and The Scientific Revolution involve us actually doing things in a scientific manner/procedure and are more akin to a physical sciences course than a social science course.

Out of curiosity, what does that involve?

 

[Nooblet94]

If you're defining science as:



then you would say HPS is indeed a science because it does these things. A huge part of the philosophical is the 'why' and the historical is the 'how' and 'when'. Though you could say some of it is more about the practice of science rather than organisms themselves which is what would draw the line between it being science and being a social science.


Also hugely depends on what course within HPS you're doing. Sociology of Science would come more under social science, as would the ethics course. However, History of the Biomedical Sciences and The Scientific Revolution involve us actually doing things in a scientific manner/procedure and are more akin to a physical sciences course than a social science course.

I would argue that science is a study of nature (e.g. why certain particles interact the way they do, how organisms evolve) while what you're describing is a study of humans (e.g. why this research is unethical, how a certain theory was formed).

I also feel like science should have a basis in quantitative measurement, but that's probably debatable.

 

[Nooblet94]

We spent 2 hours talking about preformation versus epigenesis as explanations of germination (nature alert!!!!) and how some cool little plants like polyps (nature alert!!!!) were used to demonstrate preformation was false. Most people don't care about this now because we use theories of natural selection to explain evolution, but it's good to go into the past because it gives you greater insight into the how and why of what we do now. A lot of scientists just perform scientific procedures without understanding the why or how that came about.

Ethics is only a teeny tiny part of it all. I much prefer stuff like the Strong Programme, Actor/Network Theory in terms of sociology of science. Or Demarcation Criterion for determining whether something is science or not. Or Kuhn's theories on Scientific Revolutions as a means of understanding how we frame what we think and explain developments in thought and practice.

I still disagree with you on this front, but I'll give up because this aspect of the argument could go back and forth forever.

I'm going to suggest that theoretical physics doesn't really have quantitative measurement but we still call it 'science'. Theoretical maths which ends up being all algebra and such doesn't really have quantitative measurement, but that's also 'science'.

Theoretical physics aims to describe things that are ideally able to be measured quantitatively, it just happens that most of the time we don't actually have the capability to actually do the measurements. Whether maths is a science is debatable.

My other main point is this. Doing a degree in which you study the history of medicine, its ethics and the like wouldn't qualify you as a doctor. Sure, it might potentially help you be a better doctor, but there's far more to being a doctor than the history and philosophy of medicine. Doing a degree in HPSC is the equivalent of that - you get a BSc next to your name, the same BSc that someone with a major in quantum chemistry would get. You're basically a 'qualified' scientist.

 

[nerdasdasd]

I know this is a bit off topic but how is economics considered a "science"?

 

[asianese]

Economics is a social science. It is the study of human behaviour.

 

[OzKo]

I know this is a bit off topic but how is economics considered a "science"?

Formal studies into economics follow the standard scientific procedures in terms of developing a hypothesis, ensuring that the experiment can be replicated, etc.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Formal studies into economics follow the standard scientific procedures in terms of developing a hypothesis, ensuring that the experiment can be replicated, etc.

Also, what experiments do they do?.....what scientific procedures would there be? Scientific processes? All they do is analyse graphs and statistics.....

Wouldn't scientific procedures be like... ways of producing esters or ways of neutralising acid?

 

[jenslekman]

We spent 2 hours talking about preformation versus epigenesis as explanations of germination (nature alert!!!!) and how some cool little plants like polyps (nature alert!!!!) were used to demonstrate preformation was false. Most people don't care about this now because we use theories of natural selection to explain evolution, but it's good to go into the past because it gives you greater insight into the how and why of what we do now. A lot of scientists just perform scientific procedures without understanding the why or how that came about.

Ethics is only a teeny tiny part of it all. I much prefer stuff like the Strong Programme, Actor/Network Theory in terms of sociology of science. Or Demarcation Criterion for determining whether something is science or not. Or Kuhn's theories on Scientific Revolutions as a means of understanding how we frame what we think and explain developments in thought and practice.

This exactly.

I'm going to suggest that theoretical physics doesn't really have quantitative measurement but we still call it 'science'. Theoretical maths which ends up being all algebra and such doesn't really have quantitative measurement, but that's also 'science'.

I have to disagree with you on this; theoretical maths and physics are the foundations required for 'quantitative' science both in the present and the future. However, I'm not too sure about how the history and philosophy of science can lay such foundations.

 

[OzKo]

Also, what experiments do they do?.....what scientific procedures would there be? Scientific processes? All they do is analyse graphs and statistics.....

Wouldn't scientific procedures be like... ways of producing esters or ways of neutralising acid?

You're thinking very much in terms of the macroeconomics.

A lot of developments in areas such as behavioural economics and development economics require economists to create experiments (for example see how they use RCTs to evaluate how various development programs improve welfare) to ascertain key relationships.

 

[seanieg89]

I think that "history & philosophy" is a much better tag than "science" for HPSC but neither is really adequate.

 

[someth1ng]

I'm going to suggest that theoretical physics doesn't really have quantitative measurement but we still call it 'science'. Theoretical maths which ends up being all algebra and such doesn't really have quantitative measurement, but that's also 'science'.

I definitely disagree with this statement.

Firstly, the thing about theoretical physics is that it is clearly a branch of physics (and by extension, is a branch of science). For example, special relativity is clearly physics and is a branch of science - you really cannot argue that it isn't a part of science there. Secondly, theoretical physics related to the pre-existing body of knowledge (all other physical knowledge) which is largely mathematical.

Anyway, back on topic - this discussion should be whether philosophy (about science etc) should be included as science. Firstly, I'd like to mention the several branches of science: formal, physical, life, social, applied, interdisciplinary and history and philosophy of science.

Formal: mathematics, statistics etc.
Physical: physics, chemistry, geosciences etc.
Life: biology
Social: economics, geography, law
Applied: engineering, health sciences
Interdisciplinary: applied physics, biomedical engineering, artificial intelligence etc.
History and philosophy of science: scientific method, technoscience etc.

As you can see, science is HUGE. To really classify whether things are science or not will need a solid and formal definition of science itself.

The definition has changed over time and varies with context as well. Science can be defined as "the body of knowledge that can be explained and applied" - in this case, history and philosophy of science is definitely a part of science. It can also be defined as "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Now, if that's the definition, you can still consider history and philosophy of science as a part of science assuming "the universe" means anything that's inside the universe - ie scientific method as a solid approach to experimentation.

 

[OzKo]

I definitely disagree with this statement.

Firstly, the thing about theoretical physics is that it is clearly a branch of physics (and by extension, is a branch of science). For example, special relativity is clearly physics and is a branch of science - you really cannot argue that it isn't a part of science there. Secondly, theoretical physics related to the pre-existing body of knowledge (all other physical knowledge) which is largely mathematical.

Anyway, back on topic - this discussion should be whether philosophy (about science etc) should be included as science. Firstly, I'd like to mention the several branches of science: formal, physical, life, social, applied, interdisciplinary and history and philosophy of science.

Formal: mathematics, statistics etc.
Physical: physics, chemistry, geosciences etc.
Life: biology
Social: economics, geography, law
Applied: engineering, health sciences
Interdisciplinary: applied physics, biomedical engineering, artificial intelligence etc.
History and philosophy of science: scientific method, technoscience etc.

I was considering screen-capping that off Wikipedia.

In the end, does it matter what HPSC is classed as?

 

[someth1ng]

Okay, done my writing.

I agree with what you said - it doesn't really matter that much whether we put history and philosophy of science under science or arts or wherever you want it to be. After all, we only arrange them into groups in an attempt to categorise things and make then simpler to describe.

It's a tool to make things easier, just like why we have moles in chemistry or why we use base 10 in mathematics.

With that said, I think we can mostly agree that history and philosophy of science definitely does have some strong overlap with non-sciences compared to other sciences.

 

[Nooblet94]

... so what?

And your doctor example might not be the best considering it has been discovered that only 30% of illness is physical. Psychological stuff accounts for 70%+ of illnesses (even those that have physical symptoms) so I would say that just learning medicine might not make you the best doctor. Which is why they're bringing more psych stuff into med courses which a lot of people don't consider 'science' as such.



History of science can explain why we do experiments though. It can explain why we have a scientific procedure and what it is. It can enlighten you as to all the mistakes that have been made in the past to get us to where we are now. They say we should learn history or we're destined to repeat our mistakes. HPS can help you learn that history. I mean, its purpose pretty much IS that history. There's a reason we have experimentation and stuff these days instead of just sitting around musing about Aristotelian ideas like they used to and only HPS can explain the development from then to now.

I'll concede your point about not all illness being physical (although I find it hard to believe it's only 30%), but my point still stands if you replace the doctor with a surgeon.

So what? It's misleading. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to get surgery from a doctor and later found out that they had an MBBS in the history of medicine. Just like I wouldn't want to hire a plumber and found out they've got a certificate III in the philosophy of plumbing. If someone has a BSc I'm going to assume they have a background in science, not history and philosophy.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying it's not useful. Saying HPSC isn't useful because it's not a science would be like saying a law degree isn't useful - it is, it's just not a science and there's nothing wrong with that. I fully understand that history and philosophy are important - "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".