Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Why is everyone always so surprised when I have to mention that Psychology's genesis was actually metaphysics and epistemology, which date back to Aristotle. That's about 2400 years ago. That predates the scientific method by about 1400 years. Psychology is not a young science. Neurology is a young science. Quantum physics is a young science.
|
I'd say because that's a stretch. First of all, many philosophies and probably many sciences can draw roots to epistemology. In fact, regardless of organized epistemology, the concept must predate any science or organized knowledge by the very nature of what it encompasses. Saying that psychology's genesis was partly epistemology is like saying that cable TVs genesis was partly rooted in ancient theatre. The line can certainly be drawn, but it's a relatively thin one.
As for metaphysics, well... now you're burning yourself. The word metaphysical translates to afterlife or directly to after physical, as in after or beyond our physical selves. It was generally construed as beginning as a way to think about our ties to the universe and the ultimate "why are we here" questions. In the more modern aspect, metaphysics is often associated with occult dealings and considered pseudo-science. Even in merrier times for metaphysics, it has been fraught with naysayers, many with good arguments about it's limited application or testable conclusions (metaphysics is much more philosophy than science and doesn't adhere particularly well to scientific method). It also often circles back to determinism, which I still contest is outside of the scope of the scientific method.
From my perspective you are now making a statement similar to me saying that astrophysics evolved from astrology, simply because the stars were often the focus. At any rate, I would say that either all science or no science is rooted in epistemology... depending on your perspective.
Perhaps those windmills are yours for the jousting, Quixote?