Childcare and Social Services.

[Pebble]

I don't really follow your meaning here, but in any case, you said:

I asked how you would apply this (scientific enquiry) to go about determining the meaning to fifth-century BC Athenians of, say, the Parthenon frieze.

If one regards the output of the heart as blood flow, the output of the kidneys as concentrated waste products and the output of the brain as the mind (accepting that all these organs do much more), then the mind is a valid area for study. Why do we infer meaning? What are the factors that influence value? Why do one group judge that ancient artifacts are of immeasurable value in themselves and must be preserved at all costs, while others will actively destroy those same artifacts? The questions one could address are endless. I am not saying that we are any where near being able to do this systematically at present, just that I see no reason to assert that such enquiries are taboo or beyond all imaginable possibilities.
So to the meaning of the Parthenon frieze: whose meaning? those who created it (not available for direct study now) to current observers? Well if the latter why not? One may not be able to codify and rationalise the meaning itself, but one can evaluate different groups that see different meanings in the frieze.

I would argue that there are, indeed, many areas of life in which scientific inquiry is utterly inappropriate and quite invalid - philosophy, particularly in regard to ethics, for example. We may use ethics to guide the application of scientific discoveries but not, I think, the other way around.

Following from the fascinating converstion in this thread, I'm sure that science ( forensics, medical investigations etc ) can be used to investigate tragic familial situations. Science cannot, however, determine the morality of events that may have occured.

Thanks, ethics are indeed an excellent example of an area that I would have difficulty in seeing the method of study for. But lets consider this are our ethics not informed by our understanding of the world. Who would have considered it unethical to clear forrestation for human use a hundred years ago? Now that we have rational insight into climate change, ethicists have the opportunity to include scientific data into their formulation of acceptable human values. I would suggets that we no longer regard the burning of witches as ethically acceptable because of increased understanding - this did not come from philosophy or religion. Granted if you go right back to what is fundamenatlly right and wrong, I run out of options, other than to question is there really right and wrong or is this simply a product of the human mind?

[DrS]

What are the factors that influence value? Why do one group judge that ancient artifacts are of immeasurable value in themselves and must be preserved at all costs, while others will actively destroy those same artifacts? The questions one could address are endless.

I agree here, and these questions fall within the remit, properly, of archaeology, where a scientific approach is valid and useful, though not the only approach available and utilised in archaeological studies.

So to the meaning of the Parthenon frieze: whose meaning? those who created it (not available for direct study now)

Yes, I referred to "determining the meaning to fifth-century BC Athenians". And here I disagree with you. It is entirely possible to reconstruct various possible meanings of this frieze for direct study from literary, archaeological, and historical sources. There are methodologies available that are both rational and rigorous to assist in interpreting these sources, but it is impossible to conceive of hard evidence that could be, or even should be, subjected to a putative scientific approach.

This is my problem with what you have been saying at times. "Not available for direct study now" implies to me that you would discard even the attempt to reconstruct a period of human genuis, with all the resultant loss for our own times that this would imply. Also, for example, when you ask why we should not explore emotional or artistic intelligence, I would contend that it depends on what you mean by explore. I would dispute that a critical scientific approach is the correct form of exploration in such fields.

[Pebble]

This is my problem with what you have been saying at times. "Not available for direct study now" implies to me that you would discard even the attempt to reconstruct a period of human genuis, with all the resultant loss for our own times that this would imply. Also, for example, when you ask why we should not explore emotional or artistic intelligence, I would contend that it depends on what you mean by explore. I would dispute that a critical scientific approach is the correct form of exploration in such fields.

I will concede on these points. My original statement was too sweeping, so pointless trying to defend. What I was trying to get at was that even where an area seems beyond scientific method, there is usually a way of reframing one's questions to permit a 'scientific' approach, i.e. of creating a consistent way of recording data for analysis and hypothesis formation and testing.

[DrS]

I completely agree, and this is routinely done in the humanities, at least in the fields of history and archaeology that I am familiar with.