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 =