Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!ames!saturn!xanthian
From: xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <10507@saturn.ADS.COM>
Date: 19 Jan 90 07:12:09 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> <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu>
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA (415) 960-7300
Lines: 31

In article <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes:
[...]
>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.

The premier modern discriminator between science and non-science is
that a science must produce hypotheses/theorems which are
"falsifiable"; in the context of the current discussion, that means
that if I produce _one_ instance in which your system/theory
demonstrably fails, you will stop arguing with me that it is right, go
away, and fix it.

This is not a characteristic of any system of philosophy of which I am
aware.  Instead, into the teeth of massive demonstrations of error,
the true believers continue to espouse their "inerrant" faith.  Regard
any discussion on the net for corroberation, the current one in
news.groups, for instance.

I suggest that the group, if it is created, after the model of
talk.bizarre, to give a group of pain-in-the-neck posters a place, any
place, to post away from the "in crowd", not be created in the "sci"
heirarchy.

--
Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'.

xanthian@well.sf.ca.us  xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan)
Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian
kit at better toy stores near you.  Warning - some parts proven fragile.
-> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-