Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!unido!sinix!es
From: es@sinix.UUCP (Dr. Sanio)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.philosophy.objectivism
Message-ID: <899@athen.sinix.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jan 90 20:30:30 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>
Reply-To: es@athen.UUCP (Dr. Sanio)
Organization: Siemens AG, K D ST SP4, Munich
Lines: 48

In article <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes:
>               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. 
>
>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.
Let's first distinguish two different points. With the first, concerning
the cited above groups (I could include sci.edu, sci.philosophy.meta and
some others), I would agree that they seem a little misappropriate in the
sci hierarchy (though I appreciate their presence here).
The second one is that, at least under my opinion, the whole distinction
between "science" (dealing with what you can measure, reproduce in
experiment or build in hardware etc.) versus "arts" is a little behind - some
18th century epistemology. Anyway, this distinction (in German it's
"Naturwissenschaft" - science of nature - vs. "Geisteswissenschaft"
 - science of mind - ; I like that more, because it doesn't deny the serious-
 ness of the other branches of knowledge, IMHO the english term "arts" does)
 exists as well in the academic field as in the Usenet.

On the other hand, I don't blame anybody insisting in that sytematic distinction
(unless she/he explicitly expresses that) to regard philosophy, social sciences
or other fields of human thought as non-serious or irrelevant.
On the Usenet itself, I regret that there is no hierarchy which reflects those
parts of academic thought and research. Simply putting those topics under soc,
alt or talk seems a poor solution to me, too.
Anyway, anything different would require a very deep revision of the structure
of the news system. Maybe this wouldn't be such a bad idea.
Any  comments?

>
>-- 
>--Mehul Dave--                          (INTERNET :- mehuld@apee.ogi.edu)
>
regards, es				(sanio@netmbx.uucp  es@athen.uucp)