karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (02/05/90)
rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski) draws a distinction between the hard sciences and what I've been calling "Other Sciences" by calling the other sciences "human sciences", i.e. the humanities (those concerned witht he study of human nature). He goes on to say: >It includes any science whose main subject is man, not from a >(purely) physical standpoint (i.e. not biology), but from the a standpoint >which takes into account the nature of the human mind, and the realm of human >values and action. I based my recommendation for putting *PO in sci on the >basis of the fact that all of the other human sciences are there, and, in the >absence of a more fitting hierarchy, I consider those arguments conclusive. In the "human sciences"--great phrase, BTW--there is more room for disagreement than in the hard sciences, because the information that is taken in in the human sciences is primarily empirical--based on observation and experience. Different people perceive things differently, which often makes for lively fla--er, discussion. After all of the noise that has been generated by *p.o. I can *definitely* see that talk is a more appropriate hierarchy than sci for this proposed group. (Of course, it's my *perception* only.) But I like the idea of hum.p.o. much better than either sci or talk. I'd like to hear from some other people--especially those who have more experience than I do on Usenet--about the idea of having a hum hierarchy. I like the idea for a couple of reasons. First, it seems to answer my desire for a place for Other Sciences (sciences that aren't hard sciences). It's a very appropriate name that speaks to the subjective and human-oriented nature of the disciplines involved. Second, I would think it would be useful for system administrators. I'm assuming that the more subjective sciences would generate more "talk" than hard sciences; so that sysadmins who are concerned about disk space or are under orders to take in only the more technically-oriented groups could eliminate the hum domain. But hum would be very desirable for some sysadmins, such as those who are at universities. >Somebody raised the idea of a hum.* hierarchy. Sounds good to me. That way, >all of the defenders of the "sci is just for experimental sciences" viewpoint >are satisfied, and the proponents of SPO don't get dumped in talk. I agree about this, and I don't think of it as a compromise. I think that it is more fitting for groups in the "subjective" sciences to be in a domain that speaks to their experiential nature than to be in sci. >Under such a system, what would talk be for? For discussion of specific >political issues (e.g. talk.abortion) or other topics which are too narrow >to qualify as sciences. That's just a start--perhaps someone can suggest a >more positive criterion? I like this idea, too. I think of talk groups as being issue-oriented, though I realize there are newsgroups in talk that don't quite fit this description. Although there are newsgroups in other domains that deal with issues, those groups tend to focus on general laws and principles *for their subject* as applied *to* the issue being discussed. Looking at the subject header that I just wrote, I'm wondering if someone is going to call it, "the ho-hum domain!" "The hum-drum domain?" "Hum-bug?" Still, I really love the name. "Humanities" is both broad and descriptive, which is what's needed for a top-level name. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA karen@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen "The best way out is always through." Robert Frost
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/06/90)
In article <1990Feb5.003806.13410@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: > Still, I really love the name. "Humanities" > is both broad and descriptive, which is what's needed for a top-level > name. How about "arts" as in "arts and humanities" or "arts and letters"? It's broad, appropriate, and aesthetically lightyears ahead. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (02/06/90)
In article <SFK18C7xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: >How about "arts" as in "arts and humanities" or "arts and letters"? >It's broad, appropriate, and aesthetically lightyears ahead. The trouble is, it's *not* appropriate. "Arts" is too narrow. Putting philosophy and history and so forth under "arts" makes no sense, and putting economics and the like there makes less than no sense. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/06/90)
In article <SFK18C7xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > How about "arts" as in "arts and humanities" or "arts and letters"? > I think it would lead to the same confusion as "sci" apparently has led to. People would tend to think of it as regarding only the performing and visual arts, and not think of it as including things like philosophy. Hum is better. Jeff -- Thank you for not coercing.
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (02/08/90)
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: >In article <SFK18C7xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: >>How about "arts" as in "arts and humanities" or "arts and letters"? >>It's broad, appropriate, and aesthetically lightyears ahead. > The trouble is, it's *not* appropriate. "Arts" is too narrow. >Putting philosophy and history and so forth under "arts" makes no >sense, and putting economics and the like there makes less than >no sense. I have to agree with Gene. It seems to me that the human sciences are both art *and* science. If you call the domain *arts*, then many of the human sciences--like anthropology, say--are not well-represented by the name. "Humanities," on the other hand, speaks to the dual nature of these sciences. I agree, though, that the abbreviation "hum" is darned unfortunate. (Makes me think of the Giants--"Humm, baby!") But I can't think of another name that is synonymous. Someone suggested "huma," which still seems pretty awful to me but may be better than hum. At least you'd get that long "u" sound in there. I was hoping that someone would come up with the perfect synonym for humanities, though. "Arts" doesn't seem like it to me. -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA karen@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen "My Freudian slip only shows when I want it to." -- Louis Valentino
peter@ficc.uu.net (peter da silva) (02/09/90)
In article <1990Feb7.183055.25715@everexn.uucp>, karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: > I was hoping that > someone would come up with the perfect synonym for humanities, > though. "Arts" doesn't seem like it to me. OK, how about "humanities"? If it's synonyms you want, let's see what Roget has to offer: ---------- humanities \fIculture\fR 490 n. 490. Knowledge - N. \fIculture\fR, letters, literature; the humanities, the arts; education, instruction 534 n, \fIteaching\fR; civilization, cultivation, sophistication, acquirements, attainments, accomplishments, proficiency, mastery. \fIscience\fR, exact s., natural s., etiology, metascience; natural philosophy, experimental p.; technology; tree of knowledge, circle of the sciences, ologies and isms. ---------- Hm. Roget likes "arts" too :->. Anyway, it's more grist for the mill. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/09/90)
In article <M6N1QP3xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (peter da silva) writes: > In article <1990Feb7.183055.25715@everexn.uucp>, karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: > > I was hoping that > > someone would come up with the perfect synonym for humanities, > > though. "Arts" doesn't seem like it to me. > > OK, how about "humanities"? > Exactly. So let's get on with creating the hum hierarchy. And, Peter, you should volunteer to do the software work for Karl, so he can concentrate on other matters (inside joke). > Hm. Roget likes "arts" too :->. Anyway, it's more grist for the mill. I think we should stop mill-ing around and get on with it. Jeff Daiell -- Thank you for not coercing.
ka@cs.washington.edu (Kenneth Almquist) (02/12/90)
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: }>In article <SFK18C7xds13@ficc.uu.net}, peter@ficc (Peter da Silva) writes: }>>How about "arts" as in "arts and humanities" or "arts and letters"? }>>It's broad, appropriate, and aesthetically lightyears ahead. } } It seems to me that the human sciences } are both art *and* science. If you call the domain *arts*, then } many of the human sciences--like anthropology, say--are not } well-represented by the name. "Humanities," on the other hand, } speaks to the dual nature of these sciences. } } I agree, though, that the abbreviation "hum" is darned unfortunate. } (Makes me think of the Giants--"Humm, baby!") Subjects like anthropology are usually referred to as social sciences rather than as humanities. So how about "hss", short for "humanities and social sciences"? Kenneth Almquist -- "All the glory of the world fits into a kernel of corn." - Jose' Marti'
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/12/90)
In article <10692@june.cs.washington.edu> ka@cs.washington.edu (Kenneth Almquist) writes: > Subjects like anthropology are usually referred to as social sciences > rather than as humanities. So how about "hss", short for "humanities > and social sciences"? Not another TLA. How about "soc"? Oh, we've already got that. Funny thing. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/12/90)
In article <.OP1BFFxds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <10692@june.cs.washington.edu> ka@cs.washington.edu (Kenneth Almquist) writes: > > Subjects like anthropology are usually referred to as social sciences > > rather than as humanities. So how about "hss", short for "humanities > > and social sciences"? > > Not another TLA. How about "soc"? > > Oh, we've already got that. Funny thing. OK. What is the soc hierarchy supposed to include, and what is it supposed to exclude? Knowing that would make it easier to decide whether we need a hum hierarchy. This is not directed just at Peter; I'd like *anyone* who knows the soc 'charter' to chime in. Jeff -- Thank you for not coercing.
gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall) (02/12/90)
ka@cs.washington.edu (Kenneth Almquist) writes: | Subjects like anthropology are usually referred to as social sciences | rather than as humanities. So how about "hss", short for "humanities | and social sciences"? This is a good idea..... now let's stop talking about it and _do_ it...... ummmmm..... _how_? nrg -- "The mythology of the language machine is the mythology of a technologically advanced society which has not yet come to terms with its own linguistic self-awareness." -- R. Harris
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (02/13/90)
ka@cs.washington.edu (Kenneth Almquist) writes: >Subjects like anthropology are usually referred to as social sciences >rather than as humanities. So how about "hss", short for "humanities >and social sciences"? I like this idea. A bunch. However, will people call it "hiss" for short? (And, if they do, is that a tragedy?) So far, I like hss and hum the best of the proposed domain names. Any other ideas out there? I'd also like to hear more from people about their concerns about the complexities of starting up another domain. It may be that we should see if there's some kind of consensus for or against the process. Also, I'm concerned about possible abuse or "pollution" or whatever you want to call it in a hum or hss domain, similar to what goes on in sci. I'd be interested in hearing people's ideas/suggestions for how this could be anticipated and thwarted. One suggestion that I have is to have a "charter" for the hum domain, similar to the charters that proposed newsgroups have. It seems to me that something more than the one-phrase description we have currently to describe the top-level domains is very desirable. The more carefully delineated a top-level domain is, the harder it would be to shove some newsgroup in there that would taint the domain. If someone were to try to propose a group inappropriate to the hierarchy, s/he could then be referred to actual written documentation that defined the qualities that a newsgroup must have to go in hum (or hss). That might not dissuade the group champion from having a go at hum anyway. But I think it would make it more likely that if someone were to try to force a group into hum, consensus would vote him or her down. Ideas? Suggestions? Criticisms? -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA karen@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen "Clearly, the idea of human beings as units remains at war with the notion of the interdependence of all things." -- Salvador Minuchin
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (02/13/90)
In article <4PP17S4xds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc (jeff daiell) writes: >OK. What is the soc hierarchy supposed to include, and what is >it supposed to exclude? Knowing that would make it easier >to decide whether we need a hum hierarchy. Couldn't we re-write the charter? -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "All metaphors are capable of misinterpretation". 'The Satanic Verses'
seindal@skinfaxe.diku.dk (Rene' Seindal) (02/14/90)
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: > I agree, though, that the abbreviation "hum" is darned unfortunate. > (Makes me think of the Giants--"Humm, baby!") But I can't think of > another name that is synonymous. Someone suggested "huma," which > still seems pretty awful to me but may be better than hum. At > least you'd get that long "u" sound in there. I was hoping that > someone would come up with the perfect synonym for humanities, > though. "Arts" doesn't seem like it to me. How about "human". Isn't is supposed to be about people and what they do and think? Rene' Seindal (seindal@diku.dk)
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/14/90)
In article <1990Feb13.082150.7448@agate.berkeley.edu>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > In article <4PP17S4xds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc (jeff daiell) writes: > > >OK. What is the soc hierarchy supposed to include, and what is > >it supposed to exclude? Knowing that would make it easier > >to decide whether we need a hum hierarchy. > > Couldn't we re-write the charter? Well, let's first see if we need to. Chuq, do hierarchies have formal charters? If so, what does the soc charter say? -- Pun for the day: "I'm a sucker for vampire stories." -- Chuq von Rospach
unccab@calico.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan) (02/15/90)
In article <1990Feb12.205140.1250@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: >ka@cs.washington.edu (Kenneth Almquist) writes: >So far, I like hss and hum the best of the proposed domain names. Any >other ideas out there? I *think* I saw someone suggest human.* for a new domain name. I think that might be a slightly better name than hum.* and much better than hss.* I tend to think like a new user and if I was searching through a domain and seeing hum.history I might tend to think it was MUSIC THROUGH THE AGES or something like that, although a logical thought process should make me realize that hum.* had something to do with humans. I just think human.* will be a little more clear. So what if it isnt as short as alt.*, rec.*, soc.*? Don't we have clarinet.*? I just think that more clarity is better than less clarity. I'd also like to hear more from people about >their concerns about the complexities of starting up another domain. It >may be that we should see if there's some kind of consensus for or against >the process. I am very much for this process! I would hope it would include a not-so-great renaming so that a lot of nefarious groups could be, um, removed :) (of course, who am _I_ to suggest removing groups?) One suggestion that I have is >to have a "charter" for the hum domain, similar to the charters that >proposed newsgroups have. It seems to me that something more than the >one-phrase description we have currently to describe the top-level >domains is very desirable. A Charter for each domain would be great idea, so that we wouldn't have these arguments about -sci. vs. talk vs. soc., etc. PS Happy Day, Valentine! Charles Balan UNCCAB@med.unc.edu , UNCCAB@uncmed.uucp , UNCCAB@unc.bitnet %%%%%%%%%%%%% A Witty Saying Proves Nothing - Voltaire %%%%%%%%%%%%
mitchell@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Mitchell Marks) (02/16/90)
>>>>> In article <148@uncmed.med.unc.edu>, unccab@calico.med.unc.edu >>>>> (Charles Balan) writes: CB> I *think* I saw someone suggest human.* for a new domain name. I think CB> that might be a slightly better name than hum.* and much better than CB> hss.* I tend to think like a new user and if I was searching through a CB> domain and seeing hum.history I might tend to think it was MUSIC THROUGH CB> THE AGES or something like that, although a logical thought process CB> should make me realize that hum.* had something to do with humans. I CB> just think human.* will be a little more clear. So what if it isnt as CB> short as alt.*, rec.*, soc.*? Don't we have clarinet.*? CB> I just think that more clarity is better than less clarity. But it's not as though "Hum" as a short form for "Humanities" is new and unfamiliar. Have you really not seen this frequently before? It's not an arbitrary computer-oriented shortening originated by oddballs on the net; it's a perfectly ordinary abbreviation that you're likely to see in many university catalogues/timeschedules etc. I reiterate the point that it can be pronounced like the name "Hume", and in fact is widely so pronounced. Does this help anybody who is worried about confusion with wordless-nasal-singiing? But a top-level Hum SHOULD NOT become a shapeless container for BOTH Humanities and Social Sciences. [The idea that these are all the Human Sciences is useful in a few contexts, but not here.] Put the social sciences in Soc. There's no harm in having them coexist there along with the current Soc groups (for some of which "soc" is understood as "socializing", and for some of which -- soc.women for instance -- the "soc" could indeed be understood as informal work in some social science, maybe sociology / anthropology / psychology). Then the sci/hum/soc portion of the top level would very nicely echo a typical and useful way of dividing up academic subjects. -- Mitch Marks mitchell@cs.UChicago.EDU [this space available]
Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) (02/16/90)
In article <1990Feb12.205140.1250@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: >ka@cs.washington.edu (Kenneth Almquist) writes: > >>Subjects like anthropology are usually referred to as social sciences >>rather than as humanities. So how about "hss", short for "humanities >>and social sciences"? > > >So far, I like hss and hum the best of the proposed domain names. Any >other ideas out there? I'd also like to hear more from people about >their concerns about the complexities of starting up another domain. It >may be that we should see if there's some kind of consensus for or against >the process. > As I understand it, the purpose of hum is to encompass art, literature, etc.; it is concerned with synthesis more than analysis (does it includes crafts and design?). Since "syn" is bound to be misinterpreted, how about "creative" for the creative "sciences"? Is there a rule that it has to be 3 letters? _______________________________________________________________________________ Chris Holt, Computing Lab., U. of Newcastle | Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk _______________________________________________________________________________ "All the world's a cage, and all the men and women merely orangutans..."
gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall) (02/17/90)
mitchell@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Mitchell Marks) writes: | But it's not as though "Hum" as a short form for "Humanities" is new | and unfamiliar. Have you really not seen this frequently before? | It's not an arbitrary computer-oriented shortening originated by | oddballs on the net; it's a perfectly ordinary abbreviation that | you're likely to see in many university catalogues/timeschedules etc. In the six universities I have been associated with, I've never seen three letter codes for departments or faculties 4 and 2 letter repectively is the norm in Canada)--so you might want to revise your claim. | I reiterate the point that it can be pronounced like the name "Hume", | and in fact is widely so pronounced. Does this help anybody who is | worried about confusion with wordless-nasal-singiing? So what 'hum' can be pronounce 'poop' for all anyone cares. As I have said before--stop talking about it and start doing something about it! nrg -- "The mythology of the language machine is the mythology of a technologically advanced society which has not yet come to terms with its own linguistic self-awareness." -- R. Harris
rissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama) (02/18/90)
In article <1990Feb12.205140.1250@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: >Also, I'm concerned about possible abuse or "pollution" or whatever >you want to call it in a hum or hss domain, similar to what goes on in >sci. I'd be interested in hearing people's ideas/suggestions for how >this could be anticipated and thwarted. It's my impression that the so-called abuse that goes on in sci is due to the kinds of articles netters post there, that some of what shows up in those newsgroups has nothing to do with science per se. In other words, the problem isn't that there are a few newsgroups that some people think shouldn't be in that hierarchy as much as it is the types of articles that are posted. > The more carefully delineated a top-level >domain is, the harder it would be to shove some newsgroup in there that >would taint the domain. "Taint" the domain?? My goodness, what a very judgmental thing to say about your fellow netters. What horrible things do you think would happen were the proposed domain to become "tainted" with a duly-elected but possibly inappropriate newsgroup or two? Would some sites refuse to carry the entire hierarchy because of that? And for that matter, have any sites dropped or refused to carry the sci hierarchy because of the presence of "inappropriate" newsgroups there?
mitchell@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Mitchell Marks) (02/20/90)
>>>>> In article <7721@yunexus.UUCP>, gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall) >>>>> writes: NG> In the six universities I have been associated with, I've never seen NG> three letter codes for departments or faculties 4 and 2 letter NG> repectively is the norm in Canada)--so you might want to revise your NG> claim. Sure, and I've also seen six-letter forms (for departments). I wasn't claiming anything like an exceptionless generalization. I was supporting "hum" against the proposed alternatives "huma" and "hss". The point about 3-letters was directed against "huma", and depends on our present context, where "hum" will produce a nice parallelism with "sci" and "soc". The point about it being a fairly familiar abbreviation was directed against the purely neologistic "hss". MM> I reiterate the point that it can be pronounced like the name "Hume", MM> and in fact is widely so pronounced. Does this help anybody who is MM> worried about confusion with wordless-nasal-singiing? NG> So what 'hum' can be pronounce 'poop' for all anyone cares. Good. I'm quite glad you aren't bothered about this. But please, Norm, make use of the context avvailable to you. I didn't introduce the question of pronunciation into a vacuum. Others had already raised related questions, by objecting to "hum" in part on the grounds that it could be confused with the word (the more-or-less musical sense). People pointed out in reply that nobody would reasonably confuse a top-level category with this sense, and I added to this line of reply my small note to the effect that this collision might seem less troublesome (to the few people who found it troublesome at all) if they think of it as pronounced like 'Hume'. So, no, I don't really care how it would be pronounced; and I hope that the collision with the similarly-spelled word no longer remains troublesome to anybody. May I take it that you agree with me, on this point? NG> As I have said before--stop talking about it and start doing something NG> about it! Considering the huge amount of discussion that sometimes goes into even choosing between two good, plausible names for the creation of a single uncontroversial newsgroup, I suggest that it won't hurt to be a little patient and choose carefully now when we're talking about a top-level restructuring. -- Mitch Marks mitchell@cs.UChicago.EDU A mind's reach should exceed its grasp, Else what's a meta for?