Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rlgvax!cliff
From: cliff@rlgvax.UUCP (Cliff Joslyn)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Definition of science and of scientific method.
Message-ID: <586@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Jul-87 13:28:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.586
Posted: Thu Jul 30 13:28:32 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 09:54:08 EDT
References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM> <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> <329@inco.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc, Reston VA
Lines: 34

In article <329@inco.UUCP>, mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
> 
> 	Science:
> 		uses a formal language (mathematics) which is susceptible
> 		to analysis.
> 		deals with observable phenomena.
> 		proceeds from a relatively small number of explicitly
> 		stated axioms.

Howdy neighbor.  I must disagree with this.  A physicist approaching the
world is working perhaps on a specific problem, but with a whole wealth
of perhaps even unconscious assumptions about the world and how it
works.  However, I do believe that he/she is trying to determine those
axioms (first principles, fundamental forces, natural laws) from which
that whole can be deduced, which is almost exactly the converse of the
above. 

> 	Philosophy:
> 		uses an informal (natural) language which is not susceptible
> 		to analysis.

Only some kinds of philosophy.  There is a great deal of "analytical"
philosophy of mind and language which is constantly developing novel
formal languages.  Indeed, logic itself was originally a philosophical
endeavor.  Of course, what we're talking about is the relation between
philosophy and mathematics.  However, I'd grant that Kierkegaard and
Sartre do not work in formalism (well, maybe Sartre, if you pushed it
just right. . .)

-- 
O----------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Computer Consoles Inc., Reston, Virgnia, but my opinions.
| UUCP: ..!seismo!rlgvax!cliff
V All the world is biscuit shaped