Yes, those "Sciences" are historical in nature. The study of History as such is notwithstanding undoubtedly a subset of the Humanities.
t's better treated as a science. Not an art.
If it has implications on today's policies, that would be a political discussion, yes. Otherwise it is pure History, not a discussion on politics.
History always(or usually) has implications on todays policies.
Yes, but not a "natural science".
So what? Psychology, cognitive science, and anthropology are not natural sciences either, does that mean they each get a section?
It doesn't really matter what you think.
What an open minded approach.
It is a fact that it currently is treated as the "Natural Science" forum.
Is it? Not really.
Matters of IQ and male/female differences are not exactly "natural sciences"(a very vague and arbitrary distinction which I don't adhere to anyways)
but I found threads on those subjects in about 1 second.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19418
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19400
As well as MPD.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18540
Either your definition of natural science is so vague that it can include hitorical/psychological sciences, like history and athropology. Or any studies concerning aspects of human nature and historical events cannot be called natural science(there goes much biology,psychology etc.)
quote: Perhaps, there is a bit of approximation involved. However I see the devision as relevant as those are three big seperate things people discuss.
Well History is in fact also a "big separate thing" that people discuss - but it doesn't really fit into to any of those categories.
I don't really see many posts on it. Of course that may be "because there's no place to post about it." But that's conjecture, I could say that about anything.
No they do not "fit nicely into other categories". Both History and Linguistics are clear separate subsets of the Humanites (as is evidenced by the fact that they are treated as such at most faculties).
Well the faculties destinction in this matter is based more on tradition then a real reason to differentiate I'd say.
And IF faculties treat things differently, that doesn't follow that there 1) Is a solid distinction. 2) That the subjects cannot fit under other forums.
Faculties often times treat religion and philosophy differently. That doesn't mean they can't go together well though.
Why are you referring to the "general four" like they were academical standards? They are merely a construct of this forum.
All categories on any forums are mere constructs. Even your proposed ones. Thus that's not really a good refutation.
Secondly, I'm not reffering to the "General Four" because they are academic distinctions set by the state or universities but because they've already been established on the board.
No, Biblical scholarship is not a religion (?!?) - it is the study of religion. Sorry I didn't spell that out for you.
Well I guess then, I must speel out that's its not a study of religion but a study of the Bible.
Debates like that go on every day in R&P.
Where? Just looked. None there.
Not as long as the Science section is reserved for Natural Science, which in fact seems to be judging from the debates that now take place in that forum.
No they aren't. There's psychology in there too.
Not widely shared? 25 % of the votes cast at this point in time (32) indicate otherwise.
Actually it's more like 9.4 percent now.
The fact that you personally wouldn't participate in such a forum isn't reason alone.
Well then the fact that you'd personally want such a forum is not sufficient reason to make it.
Golly. I had no idea that Mr. Rock was such an authority on scholarly matters. Ok. That makes all the difference.
LOL. I was just crediting the guy with a clever saying, not making him an authority.
Seriously, we *can* also try to have discussions on History and/or Linguistics in the current categories. The subjects still do not fit in there as nicely as you contend.
I think they do. I think the only reason they would fail to fit is if a person didn't follow up what he/she said about history and linguistics with evidence, empirical/tested evidence like they do with science. In which case discussions about history and language will get nowhere. Because the subjects are not settled by rational discourse(philosophy) or research(science) but become mere conjecture. I'd rather such subjects be treated like serious matters rather then conjecture. These subjects are also different from politics and art, in that the two mentioned subjects consists of value judgements. History and linguistics unlike art and politics are not matters of value judgement though but matters of discovery, empirical discovery, which is a scientific endeavor(or one best left to scientific method anyways.)
[/offtopic]
Touché. That was a rather grumpy remark on my behalf. My apologies.
