gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (02/27/90)
In article <59506@ccicpg.UUCP>, dave@ccicpg ( Dave Hill) writes: >If you would stop to READ the groups you'd see the difference >between the rec group and the sci group. The rec group is most >definitely a 'hobby' group. Novice fish keeping questions. I did this, and it's true. Sci.aquaria is in effect rec.aquaria.wizards, for experienced and dedicated hobbyists. It is just as much of a hobby group as rec.aquaria is, however. >The sci group is carrying as much hard science as any of the other >sci groups. How doesn't it fit into the hierarchy? It's a sci >group, they talk sci. What's the problem? This is false. In a REAL goddamn science group, there are real goddamn scientists talking about their special subject as a good part of the mix. If sci.astro had *only* hobbyists talking about their 8" Newtonians, it would be just like sci.aquaria, and it would be a "rec" group. In fact, sci.astro has astronomers, sci.physics has physicists, sci.math has mathematicians, sci.lang has linguists, and so forth for some but not all of the other sci groups. These are the real science groups, the rest don't belong. Science is concerned with finding things out. Hobbyists talk about aquatic life as a part of their hobby, but the talk is in aid of their hobby, not in aid of understanding aquatic life. Incidently, anus-breath, follow-up to "misc.test" is a game for alt.flame or talk.bizarre, not here. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "You and I as individuals can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but only for a limited period of time. Why should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" -- Ronald Reagan
richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) (02/27/90)
In article <1990Feb27.102423.20910@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >In article <59506@ccicpg.UUCP>, dave@ccicpg ( Dave Hill) writes: > >>If you would stop to READ the groups you'd see the difference >>between the rec group and the sci group. The rec group is most >>definitely a 'hobby' group. Novice fish keeping questions. > > I did this, and it's true. Sci.aquaria is in effect >rec.aquaria.wizards, for experienced and dedicated hobbyists. It >is just as much of a hobby group as rec.aquaria is, however. > >>The sci group is carrying as much hard science as any of the other >>sci groups. How doesn't it fit into the hierarchy? It's a sci >>group, they talk sci. What's the problem? > > This is false. In a REAL goddamn science group, there are real >goddamn scientists talking about their special subject as a good >part of the mix. If sci.astro had *only* hobbyists talking about >their 8" Newtonians, it would be just like sci.aquaria, and it >would be a "rec" group. In fact, sci.astro has astronomers, >sci.physics has physicists, sci.math has mathematicians, sci.lang >has linguists, and so forth for some but not all of the other sci >groups. These are the real science groups, the rest don't >belong. > Gene, you disappoint me. What makes a REAL scientist so special that they must have their own groups? Ninety percent of all posters to sci.* groups are either computer scientists or students. Science is for the masses. I you want to talk serious science, no one will put state of the art findings on the net. I would destroy their chances for obtaining more funding. What we find, with few exceptions, is a popularized version of science equivalent to what you might read in _Scientific American_ or _Science_ (at best). Your contempt for this sort of science is disturbing. I'd suggest that you read all of the "sci.*" groups over the next week and carefully consider your words. One key aspect of science is that your findings ought to be useful in some applied sense and there be an active interplay (feedback) between those who your results impact and your experimental design. After perusing all of the sci.* groups the U of IL carries, my observations are that several groups largely fit your definition of REAL science, several others are applied (or offer active interplay between theory and application) and several others are nearly all about how people feel about "science", in the broadest sense: 1. sci.astro is over 50% discussions on observing stars and telescope construction. [I don't feel that this makes it any less scientific as "hobbyists" have made frequent contributions to the science] 2. sci.electronics has a large number of discussions on how to construct widgets or the merits of Radio Shack part number 12345. 3. sci.energy concerns itself with all types of energy, their perceived effects on the environment and safety. 4. sci.environment has been discussing the merits of the Greenpeace organization. 5. sci.misc has a wide range of topics discussed, many of which would not pass your definition of REAL science. 6. sci.philosophy.meta ought to be where you discuss your definition of REAL science. 7. sci.physics.fusion was (and still is) discussing the cold fusion debacle. 8. sci.psychology has several articles on ESP. 9. sci.skeptic has an active discussion on antigravity and satanism. 10. sci.space.shuttle has had a fair number of inquiries on "How do I become an astronaut", the addresses for "space camps", etc. 11. sci.virtual-worlds discusses deprivation chambers. So what's wrong with all of the above? I would state that they are all science or science-related in some way. Who am I to define science? Just as hobbyists have made contributions to astronomy, they have also helped out in aquaculture. Science and hobby are not a step function; they blend into one another. Discussions on species of bacteria which denitrify filter beds, pathology of fish diseases and most other topics which have appeared in the non-cross posts in sci.aquaria ought to fall somewhere in the range of REAL science I have outlined in 1 -- 11 above. > Science is concerned with finding things out. Hobbyists talk >about aquatic life as a part of their hobby, but the talk is in >aid of their hobby, not in aid of understanding aquatic life. > The reason a fair number of us collect and keep fish is to observe how these organisms survive and reproduce. I posit that your definition of science is parochial. > Incidently, anus-breath, follow-up to "misc.test" is a game >for alt.flame or talk.bizarre, not here. This doesn't deserve a reply of any sort (sigh...) >-- >ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 >"You and I as individuals can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but >only for a limited period of time. Why should we think that collectively, >as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" -- Ronald Reagan -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = Mike Richman smart internet/bitnet/uucp: mrichman@uiuc.edu = = U of Illinois old bitnet: mrichman%uiuc.edu@uiucvmd = = Water Survey old uucp: uunet!uiuc.edu!mrichman =
rdd@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) (02/28/90)
In article <1990Feb27.102423.20910@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >>The sci group is carrying as much hard science as any of the other >>sci groups. How doesn't it fit into the hierarchy? It's a sci >>group, they talk sci. What's the problem? > > This is false. In a REAL goddamn science group, there are real >goddamn scientists talking about their special subject as a good >part of the mix. Gee, golly, that would be a SWELL idea, but it has absolutely no bearing on reality (guess you're not a scientist, or you would have noticed that, huh?). Gene Spafford's list of active newsgroups gives this definition for "sci": "Discussions intended as technical in nature and relating to the established sciences." I (and obviously other people) have interpreted this as: "topics technical in nature, which don't fit into the comp.* hierarchy, and which are too formal to fit into the rec.* hierarchy." *Tradition* counts for a lot here--sci.* has never been some elite "for scientists" stem; it's been "about science." There is no indication of any need to change that. >If sci.astro had *only* hobbyists talking about >their 8" Newtonians, it would be just like sci.aquaria, and it >would be a "rec" group. In fact, sci.astro has astronomers, Amateur astronomers provide important contributions to the *science* of astron- omy, bub. >sci.physics has physicists, sci.math has mathematicians, sci.lang >has linguists, and so forth for some but not all of the other sci >groups. > These are the real science groups, the rest don't belong. Thanks for defining the Gospel according to Gene Smith. Perhaps you could help me out with a question--in forming sci.aeronautics, I was looking for an "eng"ineering stem. Couldn't find one. Yes, sci.aeronautics split from rec.aviation, and yes, it does seem to be more applied engineering than any- thing else. By your criteria, it doesn't have a place in sci.*, and I'm alarmed at the possibility of its proper place being rec.*. Please, do apply your superior organizational skills to this problem and solve our quandary. > Incidently, anus-breath, follow-up to "misc.test" is a game ^^^^^^^^^^^ >for alt.flame or talk.bizarre, not here. Uh-huh... right... There sure do seem to be some rather outspoken individuals permeating the net these days. Just a few weeks ago, some uptight people not- ified the universe that comp.graphics was not a *learning* forum, but, rather, a forum for the esteemed elite, discussing "advanced" topics, and that the rabble ought not to occupy the bandwidth. Smith's post strikes me as rep- resentative of the same close-minded spirit. Yeah, it'd be nice if use(r)-net had antiseptic groups for "scholarly" discussion of materials, but (a) the users don't seem to want it, and (b) I have grave doubts as to whether Real (TM) academics would risk their reputations on a forum like this (graduate students excepted, but do they count? Naaaah).
berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) (02/28/90)
In article <1990Feb27.102423.20910@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >would be a "rec" group. In fact, sci.astro has astronomers, >sci.physics has physicists, sci.math has mathematicians, sci.lang >has linguists, [...] Sci.skeptic has, er, ah .... -- John Berryhill 143 King William, Newark DE 19711
" Maynard) (02/28/90)
In article <12412@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: >In article <1990Feb27.102423.20910@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >>would be a "rec" group. In fact, sci.astro has astronomers, >>sci.physics has physicists, sci.math has mathematicians, sci.lang >>has linguists, [...] >Sci.skeptic has, er, ah .... ...been a big mistake. Just like the original subject of this flame war: sci.aquaria. The difference? sci.skeptic's creator has admitted the mistake. Richard Sexton and his Sycophants(tm) haven't. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "Klein bottle for sale. Inquire within." - Charles Hannum