In article <ieEW3.189477$5r2.429346 at tor-nn1.netcom.ca>, David Lloyd-
Jones <icomm5 at netcom.ca> writes
>><howardcurt at hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:80ermf$10v$1 at nnrp1.deja.com...>> I found a list of
>> the 100 Most Important Science Books of the 2nd Millennium
>> somewhere on the Internet.
>>I don't know what Carl Jung is doing on the list, and for that matter pretty
>much everything in psychology is still pre-scientific. Maybe in the next
>fifty years we might get something worthy of this company.
I'd agree that Jung, while undoubtedly a great thinker and scholar, cannot
be called a scientist. But there's plenty of experimental psychology which is
rigorously scientific- the whole field of cognitive neuropsychology is founded
on scientific methodology.
>>Adam Smith's 1776 "The Wealth of Nations" surely ought to be on the list,
>and if it were my list I'd have Jane Jacobs's 1968 "Cities and the Wealth of
>Nations" in there as well.
So you'd accept economics as a science, but not psychology? What definition
of 'science' are you using?!
I think it was Karl Popper who said "physics is the only true science- the
rest are mere butterfly-collecting", or words to that effect. Not sure that I
agree, but a point worth considering.
>> -dlj.
>>>>
--
Nick Medford
