I believe Emotion should always be a tool used in the progression of science.
And it is. I don't want to be sexually offensive... But theories make often the same effects than a beautiful woman/ handsome man on the scientifics. And at least "great scientists" have a relationship with them (or some of them) that may be comparable to f*cking. My words are a bit vulgar but "true" enough i think. And that plays even important part in science "progress" (even if i hate this word of "progress". As a matter of fact i don't believe science progesses, it is just continued). But even then science is not an entirely rationnal and cold field. It is a very living thing with its love and hate. It was what i mean saying that science was an exercice... of life. Not the only one, but one among others. But poetry and arts, even "magic" are not absent from science. It is very difficult to explain why in simple words though.
MG, you state archeology is not a science - then define science, please
Science = natural sciences (only?)
Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry is science - archeology is not? What else is not? Medicine, biology, history, geology,...???
As always Glance you are asking a very good question, but one i would have better liked not seen there, because i can't define science <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />
I suspect the main reason is that in a way but in a way only, is science all what is claiming to be science, and there are things too different for being really unified by thought. (well it is not true only for science).
So i will answer with a classification more than a definition. This classification (made by logicians, so scientific) has become quite classical in philosophy of science.
-Model of What a science is: mathematics. Why? because it is the field which use the simpler concept (simple in the meaning of "not composite"). in a nut shell, so oversimplified.
-rules for passing to other sciences: that they are "mathematizable" or "axiomatisable".
Concretly:
highest level of science below mathematics: physics. Why? because physics is entirely (or near entirely mathematisable) but its objects are far more composite.
highest level below: biology (and probably Chemistry but there i must confess i am very ignorant <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />). biology is partially mathematisable and would probably be entirely mathematisable one day, but its objects are far mor complex because they are much more composite than physical objects and they are dealing with life (science does not know what is life).
following highest level: "Applied Sciences": Geology, "science of electricity", "computer science" etc... They are probably more craft or technics than science. They use scientific tools and mathematisable models but their objects lack of a certain abstraction degree.
lower level: Medicin. Idem than "Applied Science". But it is dealing with life.
lowest levels: sociology, psychology, history, ethnology, archaeology, philosophy etc... They are not mathematizable. I mean their principles are not mathematizable, even if they use sometimes mathematical models. Archaeology is a bit special as it may use other scientific (like chemists or biologists), but it is using them not being them. In my mind they are more knowledges than sciences. Which does'nt mean they are not "true" of course.
When i speak about science here (in other threads it was quite different but reasons were others), i speak about the 2-3 highest levels in science: mathematics, physics (and biology). Why? because it is very difficult to attempt to know how science works with the lowest levels which are more far from the model.
Why objects, not subjects?
because they are objects. Topics but objective topics. Constituated objects, but objects. Subject here is Science.
I will try to propose a more direct and if possible simpler answer's attempt for the questions i asked as a starting point than was i have already tried... but later.
