Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!karl From: karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Sci vs. talk for Objectivism Message-ID: <7J91MN8xds12@ficc.uu.net> Date: 23 Jan 90 18:21:55 GMT References: Reply-To: karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) Organization: Ferranti International Controls Lines: 24 In article jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >After reading the discussions of what is and is not appropriate >for sci, I have to concur that talk.philosophy.objectivism or >talk.objectivism would be more appropriate. I agree with Jeff. I am not surprised to see people still pushing for the inappropriate sci category, this being usenet after all. Nonetheless I had hoped that xanthian@saturn.ads.com's comments would have ended those attempts, to wit: >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. ... The posters will be intractable. Arguments will last forever. Consensus will never be reached. These are characteristics of talk groups. If Objectivism is to get a group, it should be a talk group (unmoderated as well, in my opinion). -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "...as long as there is a Legion of super-Heroes, uunet!sugar!karl all else can surely be made right." -- Sensor Girl