>Carrol wrote:
>
>>``...It is safest, unless one is both a professional scientist _and_ a
>>professional historian/philosopher of science,
>
>rubbish. so few people are both scientist and historian/philosopher
>of science that you are suggesting that no one, not even colleagues
>in the history or philosophy of science, should speak to his work,
>since they are not also scientists.
>
>worse, to suggest this means that one should not speak to the work
>of any philosopher or historian of any field if one is working as
>student of literature or professor of literature, since that person
>is neither a professional scientist nor a professional
>historian/philosopher of science, let alone BOTH!
>
>do you just draw the line at science? but how can you, if you're
>drawing the line also at historian/philosopher of science?
Yeah, what is it about this sacred status of science? Would you leave economic analysis and policy to professional economists? Criminal justice to criminologists? Surely to write about science you should know more than, say, Stanley Aronowitz, but that's an extreme example.
Doug