brown@garfield.MUN.EDU (Ed Brown) (08/08/88)
In article <3940@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: >In article <3939@pdn.UUCP> colin@pdn.UUCP (Colin Kendall) writes: >>In article <595@sdics.ucsd.EDU>, norman@sdics.ucsd.EDU (Donald A. Norman - danorman@ucsd.edu (or .bitnet)) writes: >>> [somebody else writes] >>> In >>> addition, their definition of science is highly idiosyncratic and >>> suspect. > >>When I use the statement, I mean by science "systematized knowledge >>derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in >>order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied". >>What's idiosyncratic or suspect about that? That is not the only >>meaning of science, of course, but it's the one the statement means. > > Colin, we must have the same dictionary! How can you state that >the definition you gave is THE one meant in that statement? Perhaps to >it is, but not to everyone. Lets examine the other definitions of the >term science: (1) the state or fact of knowing; knowledge, (3) a branch >of knowledge or study, esp. one concerned with establishing and systematizing >facts, principles, and methods, as by experiments and hypotheses, (4) a) the >systematized knowledge of nature and the physical world b) any branch of this >See NAURAL SCIENCE, (5) skill or technique based upon systematized training. > It's ridiculous to attempt to catagorize something as "science" if you don't even have an accepted definition of science. The main characteristic of scientific knowledge is intersubjectivity- it is accepted by the bulk of practicioners in the field. If you're going to use a definition that's open to personal opinion then your whole premise is inherently not scientific. The dictionary, of course, is not apropos, since it is a list of all cultural uses of a word. I doubt if anyone who has studied philosophy of science would be satisfied with any of the proposed definitions. Two main characteristics of science which have been ignored in the above statements are it produces theory (not KNOWLEDGE) and it involves the human component- curiosity, thinking, emotion, intuition, and discovery. My father tends to feel that arguing about which subjects are science and which aren't involves "a high degree of intellectual snobbery" since most human endeavours have some dimension that is open to scientific investigation. "Oh taste and see that the Lord is good" Ed Brown Dept Computer Science Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John's Nf Canada brown@garfield.UUCP