Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Definition of science and of scientific method.
Message-ID: <2286@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Aug-87 19:16:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.2286
Posted: Mon Aug  3 19:16:26 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Aug-87 01:26:16 EDT
References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM> <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> <2385@ames.arpa.R> <329@inco.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT.
Lines: 21

In article <329@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
>
>	Science:
>		proceeds from a relatively small number of explicitly
>		stated axioms.
>		examples: physics, chemistry, mathematics (?)

Of the sciences, only physics ever even *seems* like it is proceeding from a
relatively small number of explicitly stated axioms.  Even there, I believe
this appearance is an illusion; I doubt any significant number of physicists
would find that an apt description of their discipline.

I do *not* regard mathematics as a science, but neither is it a branch of
philosophy.  It falls into a category by itself.  It is tempting to describe
mathematics as proceeding from a relatively small number of explicitly
stated axioms; but it doesn't.  There is a large body of mathematical
knowledge, but the underlying axioms are in dispute.
-- 

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Ashton-Tate          52 Oakland Ave North         E. Hartford, CT 06108