meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (02/06/90)
In article <1990Feb2.191043.7706@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: |ka@cs.washington.edu (Kenneth Almquist) writes: | |>Astrology is based upon observations, but it is not a science. What |>distinguishes natural philosophy (science) is that it has generally |>accepted methods for going from observations to theories. | |Webster's disagrees with you. Science is defined in the dictionary |more broadly than you define it, and only includes the natural sciences |as one of its definitions. Astrology, which is an area of systematized |knowledge, *is* a science. But that does not automatically give |astrology, or Objectivism, entree into the sci hierarchy. It's more of a collection of observations, many unrepeatable and unverifiable. At least within the immediate future. To date, it's a great deal of conjecture. -Miles