Even the positivist Carl Hempel says that the branches of scientific inquiry "may be divided into two major groups: the empirical and non-empirical 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 objtain 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, archaeological relics, and so forth. This dependence on empirical evidence distinguishes the empirical sciences from the nonempirical sciences of logic and pure mathematics, whose propositions are proved without essential reference to empirical findings."
So, the humanities are non-empirical sciences -- though sometimes there is overlap. Some lit folks, for instance, use the tools of the sociologist -- Janice Radway. I haven't read Dennis Redmond's work in a long time, but I seem to recall thinking that it was more like sociology and I fear that he may be best off getting a degree in sociology and getting a job there. I think some departments would love his work. But, alas, that would be compromising yourself and a discipline you love. And it wouldn't address what we hsould all just be pissed about: the way that disciplines are so... dang.... disciplinary. :)
But, they are all sciences! :)
NOw, I think most natural scientists and 40% of social scientists would keel over to learn that this is what a leading positivist defined as science. So, this answer is sort of tongue in cheek. I seriously doubt that advancing any of this will ever make people change their views on what is and isn't science.
> >[clip]
>
> > p.s. I sometimes denigrate the "not really" sciences too. can't help it,
> > it's ingrained in our culture to do so.
>
>Try this (very tentative on my part): the deification of "hard sciences"
>and the contempt for the study of human social relations as not "really
>science" is grounded in the Idea of Progress, which itself was partly
>grounded in the apparently obvious fact of the progress of
>technology?????
>
>Carrol
Well, most of the time, it emanates from a non-philosophical scientist's complete lack of understanding of what science actually is. Which is why we have to cut that scientist in the article some slack. Most scientists don't know from adam about philosophy or sociology of knowledge/science.
Also, Randall Collins has pointed out that the reason why natural science appears to make progress is that it works in closed systems. A refrigerator with the door shut is a closed system and it works just fine with the door closed, he says. But, leave the door open and it doesn't work and breaks. Predictably so, of course.
Society is an open system. We discover things all the time and apply them -- and actually change the world. But then, it becomes part of common wisdom. the very best example I can think of is Psychoanalysis which has become part of our common sense ways of looking at the world. What was shockingly new at one time is quite ordinary now. And, introducing it has changed the way people interact with on another in very ordinary, hardly perceptible ways. So, it never looks like we make progress in the social sciences.
Have to think on what you've written more, just thought I'd share what some folks think is the reason for the denigration. (Plus, there's just some really good history and sociology of knowledge stuff that shows how it all has very material roots in politics of the academy.)
K
"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
-- rwmartin