biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (07/15/87)
1) I think this discussion belongs in sci.philosophy.tech, and perhaps in
sci.research, but definitely not in any of the other groups. Please let's
move out of the wrong newsgroups. This article is meant as a merger of
two discussions, one in sci.med (and other places), and one in comp.ai.
Followups will go to sci.philosophy.tech *only*.
2) There are multitudes of definitions for science, and even more usages.
Here I talk just about a rather generally accepted stance.
3) There is craft (what engineers and the like do), art (about which I
don't want to speak), science (the methodically unraveling of the
secrets of the world ("world" in a broad sense), and philosophy (the
necessary building of footholds, standing on which science can be done).
4) Philosophy starts with quarreling about whether God exists, then whether
I exist (some say the other way round - for "God" some read "anything at all"),
then whether an outside world exist, then how we should look at that world
(yielding things like epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, etc.), and,
choosing epistemology, which ways of getting knowledge are there and which
ones have which value. One of these methods (as many philosophers hold)
is reason, and there come logic and mathematics around the corner.
Still much dispute (intuitionism for example - could you give us an intro,
Lambert Meertens? - or "what constitutes a proof", "what is `mathematical
rigour'", etc.) and uncertainty (liars paradox) around, as the means of
thinking are still being defined, so they cannot be used freely yet.
Perhaps that is a good working definition of science: thinking there where
the means for thinking are not yet finished.
5) Science starts (or: sciences start) from the results of the philosophers'
work (unhappily the philosophers aren't ready yet, so those results are
not as sure as they should be, and certainly not as sure as they are often
thought to be by non-philosophical scientists) exploring the world.
6) The definition of "science", and of scientific method, is by its very
nature a philosophical, not a scientifical matter. Otherwise one would
get paradoxes like:
Ockhams razor tells us to throw away any non-necessary principles.
The principle of Ockhams razor is non-necessary.
So let's throw away Ockhams razor.
(Happily, the director of the British Museum will not let you touch it,
but anyway, the case is clear.)
7) The above is highly simplified, but I believe that simple introductions
are wanting on usenet. Too often I fall into a discussion which supposes
knowledge I don't have, of I see some participants don't have.
8) If this spawns serious discussion (only in sci.philosophy.tech, please!)
I would be more than pleased.
--
Biep. (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax)
Unix is a philosophy, not an operating system. Especially the latter.