Eyes glaze over when I read accounts of what's art, what's science. Seems just another feeble effort at compartmentalizing; make things easier to discuss.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑February 25th, 2018, 11:48 am I don't understand why the dichotomy art-science. ...
I've posted elsewhere on this board about the lengthy essay, "On the Epistemology of the Inexact Sciences" (https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/p ... /P1513.pdf) from 1958, in which authors argue that the assumed difference betw. the physical (exact) sciences & the social (inexact) sciences is one of degree, not principle. At the time of the essay, the social science "economics" recently had been "admitted" into the realm of the exact sciences.
According to authors, history (of which I've always taken for granted that philosophy was a branch) was a science: their example was 17th century ships-of-the-line. The authors insisted that all sciences had basically two features: an explanatory one & predictive one.
I suppose the question is does philosophy have these features.