bfu@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Gramstad) (02/06/90)
>From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) >Date: 1 Feb 90 15:50:52 GMT >When Webster's talks about philosophy as a "science", "science" is surely >used in the very loosest sense. Science is empirical; to be scientific, a >question must--at least in theory--be capable of resolution by experiment. The bit after the ";" is a non sequitur. Your view that only experimental sciences are science is a belief system that you share with a few philosophers and probably some religions. Do you really want to exclude astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, ecology, most of psychology, sociology, history, economics, education etc and so on from the realm of science? I believe that the core problem of this discussion is the somewhat haphazard way the humanities are dealt with in the USENET hierarchy; disciplines and issues from the humanities are scattered all over the hierarchy, or at least in three subhierarchies, namely sci, talk and soc. I believe the optimum solution would be the creation of a hum-hierarchy, as suggested by somebody last week, although I understand that the thought of such a measure, which would include reorganization of some groups, might dismay the people who would have to do this work and some of the people affected by it. There would however be several benefits: 1. A consequent treatment and placement of the humanities 2. The strict definition of the sci-hierarchy would not any more be violated; it could be restricted to technical and/or natural sciences 3. A solution to current inconsistencies, such as sci.econ, sci.education, sci.psychology, sci.philosophy.meta etc -- these would be relocated to hum 4. Everything related to philosophy would be located in the same hierarchy; hum would comprise groups for general philosophy, and for specific aspects or disciplines of philosophy as well as groups for specific philosophies. Discussions whether philosophy or philosophies are sciences or not would not clutter up discussions of their creation, and their location would not be a "prestige issue" -- it would not be an issue at all. 5. Though I would consider this sufficient, I'm sure there are other benefits which I haven't considered yet. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Gramstad bfu@ifi.uio.no ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vote yes to hum.philosophy.objectivism -- and hum.philosophy.*
peterson@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson) (02/06/90)
In article <CMM.0.88.634242377.bfu@aurboda.uio.no>, Thomas Gramstad <bfu@ifi.uio.no> writes: | >From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) | >Date: 1 Feb 90 15:50:52 GMT | | >When Webster's talks about philosophy as a "science", "science" is surely | >used in the very loosest sense. Science is empirical; to be scientific, a | >question must--at least in theory--be capable of resolution by experiment. | | The bit after the ";" is a non sequitur. | | Your view that only experimental sciences are science is a belief system | that you share with a few philosophers and probably some religions. | | Do you really want to exclude astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, | ecology, most of psychology, sociology, history, economics, education etc | and so on from the realm of science? I do not understand why you believe that some of these disciplines are not verifiable by experiment. About the only one of these disciplines that inherently cannot be conducted by experiment is history. Astronomy and cosmology are inherently experimental -- we can do nothing but observe the Universe and test our theories derived on the earth. Evolutionary biology is similar to cosmology -- while we cannot actually watch it happening, we can take a look around, whether in the sky or on/in the ground, and test our theories. All of the rest of these sciences can be experimented on likewise. I believe what truly differentiates these sciences from the more "mainstream" ones, such as physics, chemistry, biology, and so forth, is that the above sciences are more limited in the scope of the kinds of experiments you can do, due to the nature of the subject. We can't go out and get pieces of stars. We can't easily monitor the activity of the human brain. But just because our observations are more limited doesn't rule out experimental possibility. (BTW, I am a Computer Science student minoring in Physics and Astronomy, while my girlfriend is majoring in Education and Psychology ...) Just wondering ... no flaming attitudes intended. Eric -- Eric J. Peterson <> peterson@nu.cs.fsu.edu <> uunet!nu.cs.fsu.edu!peterson Florida State Univ * CS Systems Support Group * Room 011 Love * (904) 644-2296 echo "This is not a pipe." | lpr -P laserjet; more ~/.disclaimer
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (02/08/90)
In article <CMM.0.88.634242377.bfu@aurboda.uio.no> Thomas Gramstad <bfu@ifi.uio.no> writes:
: I believe that the core problem of this discussion is the somewhat haphazard
: way the humanities are dealt with in the USENET hierarchy; disciplines and
: issues from the humanities are scattered all over the hierarchy, or at least
: in three subhierarchies, namely sci, talk and soc.
Maybe some of the rec groups and comp.society?
: I believe the optimum
: solution would be the creation of a hum-hierarchy, as suggested by somebody
: last week, although I understand that the thought of such a measure, which
: would include reorganization of some groups, might dismay the people who would
: have to do this work and some of the people affected by it.
Creation of a new hierarchy is not a trivial process. Unlike new
group creation, which, for many people, is done automatically,
creating a new hierarchy requires explicit editing of most
people's configuration files and at least some contact with one's
newsfeeds.
: There would however be several benefits:
:
: 1. A consequent treatment and placement of the humanities
Yes. The humanities are, as you say, not really considered as the
distinct thing they are.
: 2. The strict definition of the sci-hierarchy would not any more be violated;
: it could be restricted to technical and/or natural sciences
That would really help. We could, after the hierarchy is
established, work to get the definition of sci tightened up.
: 3. A solution to current inconsistencies, such as sci.econ, sci.education,
: sci.psychology, sci.philosophy.meta etc -- these would be relocated to hum
Along with a lot of other things. The decisions and effort to
transfer them will not come easily.
: 4. Everything related to philosophy would be located in the same hierarchy;
Sci.philosophy.tech would not, I think. One could argue it either
way, but the kind of things that normally appear on the group are
much more related to the sciences than to philosophy.
: hum would comprise groups for general philosophy, and for specific aspects
: or disciplines of philosophy as well as groups for specific philosophies.
: Discussions whether philosophy or philosophies are sciences or not would
: not clutter up discussions of their creation, and their location would not
: be a "prestige issue" -- it would not be an issue at all.
And wouldn't that be nice!
: Vote yes to hum.philosophy.objectivism
: -- and hum.philosophy.*
Creating a new hierarchy is a time- and effort consuming process;
it won't happen overnight or likely even in the next month.
Accordingly, I've issued a call for votes for
talk.philosophy.objectivism but will actively press for
transferring it to the hum hierarchy if and when such gets
created.
So, would someone want to make creating a hum hierarchy an
official proposal?
If no one else volunteers by the weekend, I'll offer to coordinate
the ideas for the hierarchy and write a formal proposal for
creating it.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral
crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We
do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_