Heidegger wasn't really even interested in "science" (ok, Wissenschaft) per se. That was kind of a side note that intrigued people who were primarily interested in philosophy of science.
--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Philip Pilkington <pilkingtonphil at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Philip Pilkington <pilkingtonphil at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Note of thanks
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 3:36 PM
> >
> > Probably one needs to clarify the
> resemblances/differences between
> > "psitivism" and "science." They are linked but do not
> coincide, and to
> > attempt to identify social theory as a purely
> positivist science is, I
> > suspect, disastrous. Paul Paolucci has an article in
> Vol. 11 of
> > Historical Materialism which focuses on the extent to
> which Marx was
> > positivist. I haven't read it yet, but it looks
> valuable.
> >
>
>
> I reckon that "science" has become something of a
> meaningless signifier
> today - if I'm excused from using a term from linguistic
> "science". It seems
> to be more so a notion that conveys authority rather than
> anything tangible
> - like "Dr.", "Professor" or whatever. Not to say that
> there isn't a manner
> in which to approach things objectively, but I'd call the
> "rational" rather
> than "scientific". Try it out:
>
> "Professor Dawkins is scientific but irrational", "Marx is
> not scientific
> but rational", "Phrenologists and socio-geneticists are
> scientific but
> irrational" etc etc
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>