| Well, I may not be a philosopher, but I am a sociologist. =p
The discipline of science is a sociological construct, yes, and it is imperfect in that it subjectivizes the act of direct observation. But, its construction is based upon limiting as severely as possible the amount of process - the subjectivity that distance the result from the observation. As such, the methodology is only important in observing and understanding directly the material world. If we changed our hypotheses, the material world does not change with them. The construct is based entirely (or as close to entirely as possible) on external information.
Philosophy is wrong because it is indirect. It seeks to define sociological constructs based on the observation of other sociological contructs. Behaviorism, Linguistics, Sociology, all these are sociological constructs based on sociological constructs, and as such add layer upon layer of subjectivity, assumptions and restrictions that dilute the matter at hand. How else can one come to the conclusion that the workings of the mind are "spiritual things"? That imbues upon the field of Spirituality a form of objectivity that it simply does not possess.
. . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |