>And if Marxism is a science, why isn't history? And if
>history is a science, then surely the resulting
>definition of what a "science" is, is so loose and
>wooly that it's completely useless and we need new
>definitions. Non-experimental science maybe.
strange. this does not bother Hempel in his concession speech to the critics of positivism opens with this:
"The diff. branches of scientific inquiry may be divided into two major groups: the empirical and the nonempirical sciences. The former seek to explore, to describe, to explain, and to predict the occurrences in the world we live in. Their statements, therefore, must be checked against the facts of our experience, and they are acceptable only if they are properly supported by empirical evidence. Such evidence is obtained in many different ways: by experimentation, by systematic observation, by interviews or surveys, by psychological or clinical testing, by careful examination of documents, inscriptions, coins, archeological relics, and so forth. This dependence on empirical evidence distinguishes the empirical sciences from the nonempirical disciplines of logic and pure mathematics, whose propositions are proved without essential reference to empirical findings." (in Philosophy of Natural Science, 1966. p 1)
yadda.
not that i'm a fan of positivism, even Hempel's revised positivism, but even Hempel--a philosopher of science who definitely saw physics as THE model of scientific inquiry and who envisioned a naturalism extending from physics to encompass biology, psychology, astronomy, sociology, history, etc--did not revert to the narrow scientism that's been bandied about in this discussion. (hi joe! i love ya! but really, archaeology IS a science, even on Hempel's account! :)!! )
changing gears a bit: i've been on vacation and am looking forward to three months of balls to the wall work ahead of me, so i've been and will be out of the loop. whoever asked about the "knowledge class", marxism, etc. remind me of what your question was. i'm pretty sure, from skimming what was written, that i've got a sense of where the orig. poster was going.
quickly: there's already been plenty written on the topic, namely surrounding the debates over the "new class" in the late 60s-70s. anyway, whoever was interested, ping me and i'll carve out a little time to give you a synopsis, point you toward some reading from a bibliography i have somewhere....
kelley