Note: these are partially THC's own positions; many academics do hold mathematics to be a science.
Yeah, but, I'm a mathematician, so my "opinion" is actually fact!
in this case.
Many of the humanities sciences can be formalized in very mathematic ways - have a look at some of the things going on in parts of musicology, for instance, and how these things actually are tested by experiments.
Sociology is very mathematicizable,
Oh hell no.
Though parts of it may be.
But some people, for instance our very own Cerne unless he's changed his mind, just don't like the parts of sociology or cultural anthropology, or even ecology or biology, that have been mathematicized; some of them (not necessarily Cerne) would prefer just to ignore those parts.
and various parts of linguistics, cultural anthropology, etc have found ways of mathematical formalization.
I find it quite likely more aspects of pretty much all scholarly endeavours will become increasingly formalized with the advent of powerful computers and computer models for them.
I wish I had the guts to say that. Whenever I do people look at me pityingly and say "well, you have to excuse him, he has Asperger's syndrome".
Of course, what fits into the definition of the English word "science" isn't universally normative as a distinguishing line between different types of knowledge either - we can come up with any number of new distinctions where some scholarly pursuits are X and some other aren't. Some other Germanic languages, German and Swedish among them, includes way more in Wissenschaft/Vetenskap than English does in science, and the territorial pissings between the different fields as to what can be classed a science seem less inflamed and prevalent there.
This is the first I've heard of that, but FAIK you might be right.
But even then, there is a recognition that results in sociology differ from results in maths or results in physics
Probably why the (demonstrably fuzzy) differentiation between "hard science" and "soft science" was created.
- "fans" of science aren't as stuck-up about it as they tend to be in English-speaking contexts.
Not quite sure what that means?
And, if I've guessed right (a pretty big "if"), not quite sure it's true?
I maintain that a strict demarcation line between different academic pursuits is counterproductive.
Well, for some purposes and in some ways.
In more ways and for more purposes it's at best unhelpful.
But for some purposes in some ways it does help.
The trick is not to let it get in the way.
Xingoxa's post, to which I was responding in my last previous post, was saying that philosophy, history, social science, and the humanities, weren't sciences if the applicability of the scientific method to a field of study were a requirement for it to be a science.
My main point was "so what? those fields all have their own valid and widely agreed-on standards of verification or validation".
My secondary point was "'social sciences' are science, just 'soft science' instead of 'hard science'".
Did I miss the point?