Is The Science of Science As A Field of Study In Its Own Right Alive Or Dead?
cliffordmiller at CLIFFORDMILLER.COM
Sun Feb 16 17:18:57 EST 2014
Might you be able to help by suggesting as a starting point an author
and a work in the philosophy of science which addresses a core of a
science of science, please? I will then be able to look it up on The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] which will then cite other
works and authors.
Popper's attempts to establish criteria for demarcation of science from
for example, Marxism, were [as I understand it] not successful. I
understand debate continued as to whether Marxism was a part of science
or a theory of a political philosophy.
Is it the position now that a consequence of the failure of demarcation
that everyone has given up attempting to identify, categorise and
classify what qualifies as science and hence given up on a science of
science? If not, might you also be able to assist please by suggesting
an author and a work I can look up on SEP which addresses
identification, categorisation and classification of difference kinds of
Whether or not one agrees physics and political science are both
sciences, it is still helpful to understand the nature of the various
brands of knowledge being offered and what makes them different from
each other. In other words, should we not give up trying to understand
the nature of what is being proferred to us as knowledge [science]?
However, as far as I can see so far, that is what has happened. Or is
More information about the SIGMETRICS