Thread: Two or three kinds of trying to understand the world?

The science-theology dichotomy is well known. Most scientists, including myself, do not try to study God by performing experiments. And they do not refer to holy books to validate scientific claims. Referring to science and religion, Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The methods of one are inappropriate for the studies of the another's problems."


Commenting on this, a theologian wrote: ". . . I would agree in part; through the social sciences, which would include historical study, we can trace the history and development of moral codes, philosophies, and religions; and we can even determine, to some degree of accuracy, which ones are effective, beneficial and persuasive; but I submit that determining the objective truth of metaphysical propositions will forever lie outside of the realm of hard, verifiable science."


Such a trichotomy--social sciences being a third component to understand the world--is new to me. Is studying of "moral codes and religions" part of sociology?

" but I submit that determining the objective truth of metaphysical propositions will forever lie outside of the realm of hard, verifiable science."

Sure, because by definition metaphysical can't be empirically measured. It also means there's no physical evidence that it even exit and therefore even considering searches for the "objective truth" is a rather silly venture. I think it amounts to mental masturbation about the "make believe."

The social sciences isn't really another way. It's just another science tailored to deal with complex interactions of psychology, perceptions and all the other stuff which makes up how we interact with peoples. It has no more ability to observe the metaphysical than any of the "hard" sciences.

i hate when people call history a social science, it existed before modern science, it is a humanities and to reduce it to just its scientific portion is a loss to the field.