Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
I disagree with your characterization of science. You seem to be using theory colloquially. In science, theory is not less than fact. Even if you are not intending a hierarchy, theory is not distinct from facts. I mentioned this above.
From your posts, it doesn't seem like you understand what "science" or "scientific" means. (At least in the way any scientist I know that uses those terms). If psychologists employ the scientific method, then the results they obtain employing the scientific method are by definition scientific. I discussed this above as well.
|
Definition of science as listed on Merriam-Webster:
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
Definition of theory as listed on the same:
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
My conclusion from the above information is that science > theory. Speculation or analysis of one thing related to another is not the same as knowing something factually. That's why theory begets knowledge (science) and not the other way around.