Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
But behaviorism shouldn't be a "school of thought", it should be a "mode of inquiry".
|
You know the quote about Bohr telling Einstein that he should stop telling God what to do?...
Perhaps you shouldn't tell science what to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
If I am an astronomer studying the microwave background, I am not a "microwavist", am I? When an "ist" is a declaration of expertise, it is a useful moniker, but when it is a claim on truth, it becomes counterproductive. A filter is a piece of a spectrum, useful for the focus it provides, but it comes with limitations. I personally flinch every time I hear "school of thought" applied to either science or philosophy.
|
To be honest, I often have the same reaction. A discipline that splits into schools of thought gives a strong impression that it's going round in circles, rather than progressing. But other times I think we should probably be more patient with young and difficult sciences like psychology. They're still in their childhood, really. How unified was physics 2,000 years ago? (Even today, you still have the various interpretations of QM, which are also schools of thought, in a way.)