Xref: utzoo news.groups:16627 alt.flame:14341
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!purdue!haven!udel!princeton!phoenix!greg
From: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (greg Nowak)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.flame
Subject: Re:sci.philosophy.objectivism
Keywords: define science
Message-ID: <13109@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 19 Jan 90 21:01:16 GMT
References: <1990Jan17.083725.1215@twwells.com> <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu>
Followup-To: news.groups,alt.flame
Organization: Cabal of Fools; Phoenix Gang
Lines: 111

In article <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu>, mehuld@APEE (Mehul Dave) writes:

>Care to explain why an Objectivism discussion group would not be
>technical in nature? 

It certainly can be. One can also have a technical discussion of
poetry or choreography or whatever, but that doesn't make it science.
You're conflating two different meanings of technical.

>No, not true.  A look a the "sci" hierarchy reveals newsgroups like
>sci.psychology, sci.lang, sci.econ.  Can you tell me what have these
>got to do with the philosophy of science?

Nothing. But psychology is a science -- it talks about the cognitive
processes that allow humans to abstract from perceptual data, so it
_has_ to be a science, right? (Don't forget that clinical psychiatry
is taught in the med schools, not in the science depts.) You don't
have to talk about philosophy of science to be a science, or to be in
the science hierarchy.

>The quote about sci
>distribution says "established sciences".  All major universities
>have departments of philosophies.  Can you explain why philosophy is
>not a science?

Well, it doesn't use the scientific method, it doesn't conduct
experiments, it isn't progressive (warning: this is a technical term
in the sociology of knowledge, which I expect you to misunderstand and
hence flame me for using)... do you need more?

>The notion that philosophy is a game played by ivory
>tower intellectuals is recent and it is sad that that has become the
>state of one of the most important field of human knowledge.  All

Boo hoo. Philosophy need not be designated a science to avoid the slur
that it is merely a game.

>the major philsophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Spinoza, 
>Liebniz Kant, Hegel etc. regarded philsophy as a very systematic and
>important field of thought and having fundamental impact on human
>life.

A lot of people feel the same way about religion. That doesn't make it
a science.

>The whole school of Rationalists attempted to model philosophical
>systems on mathematics and science (such philosophers as Liebniz for
>example).  They were correct in regarding philosophy as a science.

No, they were calling science "philosophy" as a shorthand which later
became expanded to "natural philosophy" to distinguish what we now
know as science from what we know as philosophy. There was a guy named
Newton who you may have heard of who was quite careful to keep the two
separate. 

>If you think it is not, please explain why. 

They were not under the delusion that something has to be called a
"science" in order to be regarded as worthwhile. [Gene,, PLEASE get
Matthew back on the net! What have they done to my newsgroup, ma? and
all that...]

>There is already a hierarchy sci.philosophy and quite properly so.

Right. And objectivist postings don't belong anywhere in it.

>All complete systems of philosophies are just as much rigorous and
>involved and technical as the major sciences. 

So is the construction of sonnets and sestinas. This doesn't make
poetry a science. You're confusing a few necessary features of science
with a complete definition.


>Some great minds have
>devoted their lives to this field of thought.  One belittles their
>achievements by not regarding philosophy to be a science. 

I think we can let them speak for that. Most of the philosophers I
know would be damn-near insulted to be told that they're doing
science. The others would be amused -- why should they limit
themselves to such a small toolkit? If you want to generalize about
philosophers on this point, you should talk to ones who aren't
objectivists. 

>discussion in sci.philosophy.objectivism, if it is formed, would be
>technical.  It would discuss the technical aspects of Objectivism.

That doesn't make it a science any more than discussing Bach fugues
technically makes music a science.

>I think philosophy is most certainly a science and therefore it should
>go under sci distribution.  If you can show otherwise, I would be
>interested in hearing what you have to say.

You've told a lot of stories about famous philosophers who would be
insulted if they were told they weren't doing science. Historical
evidence suggests otherwise. Why don't you give your detailed
definition of science? My bet is you'd be hard pressed to define
science in such a way as to include all the established sciences, and
objectivivism, while ruling out, say, ethics and metaethics, ontology,
and so on, branches of "philosophy" which NO philosopher considers to
be science, and also ruling out the Bhagwan and a lot of other
crazies. Not to mention the talk.religion.pagan folks, who also have a
system of knowledge dealing with the natural world... the list goes
on.

rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg  Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 
   "In addition I think science has enjoyed an extraordinary success
   because it has such a limited and narrow realm in which to focus its
   efforts.  Namely, the physical universe." --Ken Jenkins