Anselm33
I think most practising scientists (myself included) and many philosophers of science would disagree with that statement. Science, almost by definition, is empirical and relies on validation by measurement to confirm theories.
I think you and possibly Rizzi are misusing the term for science. Although the derivation of the term “science” is from the classical “Scientia” (to know or knowledge), philosophy, while an important source of knowledge, is not science, since philosophical conclusions can’t be tested by experiments or observation.
I guess that could be a problem for “most practising scientists” – a horizon limited to their own empirical field.
Theology was defined as the “Queen of sciences” in the universities of Europe. In this context “science” refers to “an organized body of knowledge” thus including subjects other than biology and the physical sciences, although it includes those as well.
Webster’s dictionary defines theology as “The science of God or of religion; the science which treats of the existence, character, and attributes of God, his laws and government, the doctrines we are to believe, and the duties we are to practice. . . the science of Christian faith and life.”
“Philosophy is the discipline that seeks to understand the causes, or principles, of things according to reason. Its object can be being, existence and nature (metaphysics), knowledge and how and what we know (epistemology and logic), religion, mathematics, natural science, culture, art etc…” (Colin P Donovan, EWTN, June 15, 2009).
Thus it is facing reality to not limit science to a reliance on experiment, observation and mathematical deduction only, as Msgr John F McCarthy explains.
rtforum.org/lt/lt126.html
4. What is science? Most books and articles written by empirical scientists on the subject of “science” avoid attempting a definition and simply declare that science is what results from the “scientific method.” In general, we may say that science is certified knowledge, and its certification comes from the use of a method that is guaranteed to produce proven results. More precisely, according to philosopher W.H. Walsh, a science is "a body of knowledge acquired as the result of an attempt to study a certain subject-matter in a methodical way, following a determinate set of guiding principles."1 This definition of science adds the element of a mental framework, to which we shall have to return later, but even this definition is not specific enough, because it fits pseudoscience as well as true science, seeing that pseudo-scientists also work in a methodical way and usually follow a determinate set, however false, of guiding principles. A further element is needed, and this is the element of “reality,” which is the characteristic of all true science. Hence, a simple but complete definition of science is “the knowledge of reality as such.” By “reality as such” is meant “reality as reality,” and this feature requires that the possessor of science is somehow focused on the notion of reality and subjecting the objects of his knowledge to his awareness of reality. For the scientific thinker as such, the notion of reality is the distinguishing concept in the mental framework that he uses in order to pursue his method. Thus all science requires the awareness of a mental framework in which adherence to the concept of reality is the specific controlling element.2
Notes
- W.H. Walsh, An Introduction to the Philosophy of History, 3rd rev. ed. (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1970), p. 35.
- See J.F. McCarthy, *The Science of Historical Theology *(2nd printing, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and Publishers), pp. 34-42.
