Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!APEE.OGI.EDU!mehuld
From: mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu>
Date: 18 Jan 90 23:00:06 GMT
References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <9001140024.AA18363@apee.ogi.edu> <8P1157Gxds8@ficc.uu.net> <8250@portia.Stanford.EDU> <1990Jan17.083725.1215@twwells.com>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 68

In article <1990Jan17.083725.1215@twwells.com>
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes
>In article <8250@portia.Stanford.EDU> harris@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris) writes:
>:      I would much prefer that an Objectivism newsgroup be in the sci
>: hierarchy, rather than the talk hierarchy; e.g. sci.philosophy.objectivism.

>This is a bad idea. If for no other reason, it is impracticable:
>creating a talk group is barely possible, creating a sci group is
>not at all possible. But the real reason is that an Objectivism
>group does not belong in sci. Let's look at the definitions (from
>the news.announce.newusers monthly postings):

>"sci"   Discussions intended as technical in nature and relating
>	to the established sciences.

>On the evidence, an Objectivism discussion group would not be
>"technical in nature". Judging from discussions in the mailing
>lists and various newsgroups, most of the discussions would be
>very general. Or, worse, would mostly consist of head butting. In
>any case, I don't think the word "technical" would be generally
>applicable to discussions in the group.

Care to explain why an Objectivism discussion group would not be
technical in nature?  There can be a charter which specifies that
the discussion should be techincal in nature.  As to flames, there are
several unmoderated newsgroup in the sci hierarchy where there are not
too many flames.

>Objectivism pretty much fails the second test, too. Like any
>philosophy, it has something to say *about* science, but that is a
>very small part of Objectivism. Putting it in sci would only make
>sense if the discussion were mostly limited to that part of
>Objectivism which has to do with the philosophy of science.

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

There is already a hierarchy sci.philosophy and quite properly so.
All complete systems of philosophies are just as much rigorous and
involved and technical as the major sciences.  Some great minds have
devoted their lives to this field of thought.  One belittles their
achievements by not regarding philosophy to be a science.  The
discussion in sci.philosophy.objectivism, if it is formed, would be
technical.  It would discuss the technical aspects of Objectivism.
This should also be beneficial to objectivists as they will learn about
the details of objectivism.

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.

-- 
--Mehul Dave--                          (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu)

"To the banner of life, all could be given, even life itself" -- Ayn Rand