Path: utzoo!yunexus!gall
From: gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: new news top level proposed (was Re: sci.philosophy.objectivism)
Keywords: Objectivism, Rand, newsgroup, philosophy
Message-ID: <6575@yunexus.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jan 90 13:18:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: yunexus.6575
References: <9001162348.AA11695@apee.ogi.edu> <12987@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2M41O75xds13@ficc.uu.net> <4M410G2xds8@ficc.uu.net> <1990Jan18.082956.29673@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: gall@yunexus.UUCP
Organization: York University   Department of Philosophy
Lines: 33

gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes:

| >But I can see the point that some postings would be less
| >technical, which is why I suggested the theoretical group under
| >sci and the applications group under talk.

|   There is nothing scientific about Objectivism, period. It is
| not science. It is not even close to being science, which
| was more or less the excuse used to create sci.skeptic
| and sci.aquaria.

I'd have preferred to use the word 'reason' rather than 'excuse', but
Gene's point should be well taken.  There is nothing _scientific_
about Objectivism... it is philosophy.  There might be an argument for
creating a new top-level, 'phil', and I stress might since I cannot
see one, but Objectivism would hardly even belong there given the
content and method of inquiry.

Pseudo-science, at best--peudo-philosophy, one might also
convincingly argue.

talk.objectivism!!

It prevents begging the question as to whether it is philosophy or
punditry.

nrg

-- 
York University          | "Philosophers who make the general claim that a 
Department of Philosophy |       rule simply 'reduces to' its formulations
Toronto, Ontario, Canada |       are using Occam's razor to cut the throat
_________________________|       of common sense.'             - R. Harris