gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (02/02/90)
In article <7402@tank.uchicago.edu>, rwt1@tank (Robert Tracinski) writes: >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. That was me. If we follow your idea of putting stuff like econ there, it should explicitly say in the charter that "hum" is for the humanities and "human" or social sciences, so we don't get this argument all over again. My idea is that if a subject area (e.g., philosophy) is taught at most universities as a Letters & Science type academic discipline, it should be able to find a place in either sci or hum. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnetgangster/Berkeley CA 94720 "We never make assertions, Miss Taggart," said Hugh Akston. "That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell--we *show*. We do not claim--we *prove*." H Akston, the last of the advocates of reason
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/03/90)
In article <1990Feb2.083825.1899@agate.berkeley.edu>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > "We never make assertions, Miss Taggart," said Hugh Akston. "That is > the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell--we *show*. We > do not claim--we *prove*." H Akston, the last of the advocates of reason ^^^^^^^^ "Or the first of their return." -- "She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of course, that's no reason for getting married." -- C. E. "Billie" Daiell
mjones@fenway.uucp (Mike Jones) (02/03/90)
Since I seem to recall that the original proposal was for a talk. group and the only real opposition I have seen was of the "no, it should be sci.!" type, isn't is appropriate to have a call for votes for t.p.o? There has certainly been enough discussion about s.p.o that one of its proponents could, if he wishes, call for votes on that, too, but that's an entirely independent issue. Mike Jones | Oh, these computers. They're so naughty. AIX Kernel Development | I could just *pinch* them. Kingston, NY | - Marvin Martian .!uunet!ibmps2!aix!mjones
howard@53iss6.Waterloo.NCR.COM (Howard Steel) (02/03/90)
In article <38268@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >The best thing to do is not try to fix sci.*, but to get rid of it. Merge >the existing groups into the rest of the structure in appropriate places, >using misc as a top level domain (one thing I don't understand is why people >don't think of putting things in misc more often). Try, for instance: <examples deleted> Bravo. Considering the amount of crossposting that is done between sci.* and talk.* it seems apparaent that it is difficult for many people to discriminate the two, so...make it one. The original concept was good, unfortunately it is just to difficult to maintain. -- / / / / / / / / / / :-(I Think, Therefore I Am, I Think :-) / / / / / / / / / / / Howard.Steel@Waterloo.NCR.COM NCR CANADA LTD. - 580 Weber St. N / / (519)884-1710 Ext 570 Waterloo, Ont., N2J 4G5 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/03/90)
In article <88511@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > a) Getting just one or two hiearchies, or (ie. comp,sci,news) That's us! comp, news, some sci. > With minor fine tuning. With major fine-tuning. And we don't want to do any more. Maybe we want to have the option of conveniently getting sci.philosophy.all? > There are expiring and feeding programs out now that tune to the newsgroup > level, why do we even need these hiearchies? Because some people prefer to not run 47 custom programs on our systems to do stuff we're doing already without them. And we *certainly* don't want to force our feeds to run them. -- _--_|\ 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?" `-_-'
morrison@ficc.uu.net (Brad Morrison) (02/03/90)
Top Ten
Reasons Why The Objectivism Group Should Be in The Sci Hierarchy
Or Inedible Leftovers
10. There's not enough room in alt!
9. Talk group won't lend enough dignity to my flames!
8. Rancid pork!
7. Elvis doesn't get talk groups at his site!
6. Vmsnet sites threatened to alias talk.politics.objectivism to rec.aquaria!
5. Salmonella-infested bean curd!
4. Talk group would generate insufficient controversy for UseNET's
grist mill!
3. Spam!
2. "talk" is just one too many characters to type!
And the number one reason...
1. Ayn Rand would have wanted it that way!
--
Brad Morrison (713) 274-5449 | My MEATLOAF is RUINED--because
Ferranti International Controls Corporation | my kitchen lacks a FULL STREAMS
morrison@ficc.uu.net | IMPLEMENTATION!!!
morrison@ficc.lonestar.org | -- Zippy (Am I POSIX yet?)charlie@milton.acs.washington.edu (Charles Geyer) (02/04/90)
In article <1990Feb1.005817.1786@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes on the notion that philosophy is a science: > Maybe some definitions are in order. From Webster's: > > science: 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from > ignorance or misunderstanding. 2: a: a department of systematized > knowledge as an object of study. b: something that may be learned > like systematized knowledge. c: one of the natural sciences. 3: a: > knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws > esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method. b: such > knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural > science. 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with > scientific laws. > > Wow! Lots of things are science! In it's definitions of science, > Webster's mentions theology as science, sport as science, and culinary > science! Cooking!! Do I want these things under sci.? No. Are they > sciences? Yes. And yes, indeed, astrology is a science. What you have to understand about this is that some dictionaries take a very permissive view of definitions. If some native speaker would use the word "science" in that sense, then that is one definition. The writers of the dictionary are not making a value judgement that astrology really is a science, or that people with any brains whatsoever think so, only that some native speakers would say so. That's not much of a standard. Considering that "science" is such a fad word, everything being called a "science" by someone, mostly in the spirit of pure craven flackery, it's no surprise that somewhere out there people are peddling astrological science, basketweaving science, culinary science, and so forth. But this so debases the term "science" as to make it virtually meaningless. So what? The question remains: is there anyone who cares enough about the meaning of words to deserve the name "philosopher" who would call philosophy a science? I wouldn't think so. But don't mind me. I voted for sci.skeptic.
greg@phoenix (greg Nowak) (02/05/90)
In article <1426@awdprime.UUCP>, mjones@fenway (Mike Jones) writes: >Since I seem to recall that the original proposal was for a talk. group and >the only real opposition I have seen was of the "no, it should be sci.!" >type, isn't is appropriate to have a call for votes for t.p.o? There has >certainly been enough discussion about s.p.o that one of its proponents >could, if he wishes, call for votes on that, too, but that's an entirely >independent issue. _exactly_. That was my point in my earlier article. The "decision" between TPO and SPO is a bogus issue. The proposer of TPO is free to declare the vote begun at any time; the same goes for SPO. They need not take notice of each other or accomodate each other in any way. Given the amount of controversy on this point, the only solution is to follow what procedures we hhave, and let the conflict be resolved in the minds of the several voters. rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ "Take 2*3*5*7*11*13. It's divisible by 59." --Matt Crawford
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (02/05/90)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >As the person who long ago sponsored the creation of sci, I'd like to simply >state (again) for the record that I think in retrospect it was a really >stupid idea on my part. I think that the reality of sci.* matches nothing at >all what we hoped for it when we created it. For this, you receive 1 attaperson. (I don't usually bring up my mistakes, and I admire those who do.) >The best thing to do is not try to fix sci.*, but to get rid of it. Merge >the existing groups into the rest of the structure in appropriate places, >using misc as a top level domain (one thing I don't understand is why people >don't think of putting things in misc more often). This, I disagree with. Sci is useful. If the purpose of the top level domain names is to provide a way to group newsgroups together which are similar in nature, then misc is pretty useless, IMO. I'm much more inclined to create hum, and possibly move any appropriate newsgroups over to it from sci. To me, "miscellaneous" means that a subject is so much not linked to *anything* that it just *has* to be kept off by itself, lumped together with a bunch of *other* things that don't go with anything. Maybe I'm thinking of filing--the stuff that goes in a "miscellaneous" file is the stuff that absolutely defies any attempt to put it somewhere where you might have a half a chance of remembering where the hell you filed it. Misc has the undesirable potential of being at least as much of a dumping ground as talk. One thing about a hum domain--it doesn't solve the aquaria dilema (fish aren't human). Now, why is it that misc.aquaria was never suggested? (Or was it, and I missed it?) >Better yet, since talk has traditionally been the 'dumping' ground for >groups we more or less want to ignore, do away with talk.* completely and >either get rid of the groups or merge them into the mainline domains. Talk >has never been anything more than a convenient way for system administrators >to easily get rid of a subsection of the net without a lot of hassle. The >question is: is this really a good idea? Would it be better to just quit >fooling ourselves and do away with them? Or merge the ones we want to keep >into the mainline and stop making them second class names? Good questions. I'm not as anti-talk as I am pro-hum. Maybe we could have another domain name for talk that speaks to the essential nature of talk groups (as I visualize it)--which is discussion of issues. Is.*? Any other ideas out there? 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
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (02/07/90)
In article <1726@milton.acs.washington.edu> charlie@stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes:
: In article <1990Feb1.005817.1786@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp
: > Maybe some definitions are in order. From Webster's:
: >
: > science: 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from
: > ignorance or misunderstanding. 2: a: a department of systematized
: > knowledge as an object of study. b: something that may be learned
: > like systematized knowledge. c: one of the natural sciences. 3: a:
: > knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws
: > esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method. b: such
: > knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural
: > science. 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with
: > scientific laws.
:
: What you have to understand about this is that some dictionaries take a
: very permissive view of definitions. If some native speaker would use the
: word "science" in that sense, then that is one definition. The writers of
: the dictionary are not making a value judgement that astrology really is a
: science, or that people with any brains whatsoever think so, only that
: some native speakers would say so. That's not much of a standard.
Something that may make a difference: Merriam-Webster's is a
descriptive dictionary: it describes the langauge as used. Also,
the senses of words are presented in historical order. So, for
'science' we know that they have evidence that science was used
as in the first sense in the 14th century (Karen left that out
but it is in the book.)
: Considering that "science" is such a fad word, everything being called a
: "science" by someone, mostly in the spirit of pure craven flackery, it's
: no surprise that somewhere out there people are peddling astrological
: science, basketweaving science, culinary science, and so forth. But this
: so debases the term "science" as to make it virtually meaningless.
That is a non sequitur. I would say that you've been mislead by
the modern fad of using 'science' to refer to the natural
sciences only.
'Science' has been used in the general sense for a very long
time. And, if we look at the definitions, keeping in mind their
historical ordering, we find that, ignoring the first definition
as irrelevant, the *very first* use of science is the general
one. And nearly the latest is the use for `natural science'.
: So what? The question remains: is there anyone who cares enough about the
: meaning of words to deserve the name "philosopher" who would call
: philosophy a science?
:
: I wouldn't think so.
But then you'd be wrong. Very few philosophers would say that
philosophy is a science, as in `physical science', but few would
argue against it being a science in the broad sense.
BTW, Merriam-Webster will answer specific questions on words if
you write to them. Get a copy of their dictionary and look in the
back for the details.
I suppose I should add that I've worked with these guys and, of
course, I believe that they know what they are talking about.
---
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_gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (02/07/90)
In article <1990Feb7.005905.1037@twwells.com>, bill@twwells (T. William Wells) writes: >Something that may make a difference: Merriam-Webster's is a >descriptive dictionary: it describes the langauge as used. It is also worth remembering in this context that it takes more than a brief dictionary entry to supply all the nuances. If one were to use the phrase, "the science of cooking", that would be correct. If one were to say, "Cooking is one of the established sciences", then that would *not* be correct. Why not? because that is how the language is used, and usage needs to be respected if communication is to be achieved. >That is a non sequitur. I would say that you've been mislead by >the modern fad of using 'science' to refer to the natural >sciences only. I think this is more than a fad--it is linguistic change. 'Science' increasingly means the natural sciences *only* in most discourse, a reflection of how important the natural sciences have become in the XX century. Usages like "the science of cooking" are still correct, but I think they are becoming rarer, and this definition is on the way to obsolescence. Which is a pretty good reason if one more were needed to avoid such usages in newsgroup hierarchies. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Proud member of ECIS -- "An effete corps of impudent snobs" -- I division
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/08/90)
In article <1990Feb7.113634.29231@agate.berkeley.edu>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > In article <1990Feb7.005905.1037@twwells.com>, bill@twwells (T. > William Wells) writes: > > >Something that may make a difference: Merriam-Webster's is a > >descriptive dictionary: it describes the langauge as used. > > It is also worth remembering in this context that it takes more > than a brief dictionary entry to supply all the nuances. If one > were to use the phrase, "the science of cooking", that would be > correct. If one were to say, "Cooking is one of the established > sciences", then that would *not* be correct. Why not? because > that is how the language is used, and usage needs to be respected > if communication is to be achieved. > > >That is a non sequitur. I would say that you've been mislead by > >the modern fad of using 'science' to refer to the natural > >sciences only. > > I think this is more than a fad--it is linguistic change. > 'Science' increasingly means the natural sciences *only* in most > discourse, a reflection of how important the natural sciences > have become in the XX century. I suspect it's because in school, "Science" is used only to refer to the natural sciences. When an elementary school student says he's "taking Science fifth period", he means geology/chemistry/physics/ biology/astronomy/the like, not philosophy, economics, psychology, etc. Jeff -- Thank you for not coercing.