🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2068@husc6.UUCP> gallagher@husc4.UUCP (paul gallagher) writes:
>In article <8705220612.AA16224@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
>>
>>Sorry to disillusion you, Richard, but compared to the *real* intellec-
>>tual achievements of this century (within science) . . . the "flowering of
>>the social and behavioral sciences" is going to remain one long gigan-
>>tic eyesore and an embarrassing piffle of a joke.
>
>How do you distinguish science from non-science?  Also how can the non-sciences
>straighten up their act?
>I've recently read some articles in historical biology (on the origin of bone),
>and I don't see how the sorts of evidence and the sort of reasoning the authors
>use differs from those used in the history of human society (which is not
>to say there is no difference)?  How is a fact or a theory in a science like
>paleontology any more certain than one in history or a social science? 
>
>PG

For a good and clear discussion of these points may I recommend
	Scientific Knowledge and its social Problems
	Jerome R.Ravetz		Oxford Clarendon Press

Besides a host of other more social-oriented matters, the book discusses
the differences between "real" science, "pseudo"-science and "non"-science.

Disclaimer:	The author is a friend of mine.
Warning:	This is NOT a light-weight book.

		Adam Hamilton