Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!ukc!its63b!aiva!jeff
From: jeff@aiva.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Definition of science and of scientific method.
Message-ID: <122@aiva.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 3-Aug-87 10:21:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: aiva.122
Posted: Mon Aug  3 10:21:15 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Aug-87 08:59:35 EDT
References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM> <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> <586@rlgvax.UUCP> <333@inco.UUCP>
Reply-To: jeff@uk.ac.ed.aiva (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: Dept. of AI, Univ. of Edinburgh, UK
Lines: 20

In article <333@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
>> > 	Science: proceeds from a relatively small number of explicitly
>> > 		stated axioms.  [...] Examples:
>	What we (and our instruments) perceive is the "actual" universe.
>	Physical laws are universal and invariant over time.
>	Physical laws can be represented mathematically.

Well, here's a contrasting position:

Rules of this sort are more often implicit, not explicit.  Making them
explicit is Philosophy of Science, rather than Science.  Science does
not require a philosophical foundation of this sort.  It is Science
itself that determines what exists, what we can observe, and what
representations are useful.  We can even imagine discovering that
physical laws are not, say, invariant over time.  (You could say,
I suppose, that then they're not (really) physical laws, but it's
not very enlightening to debate merely what we're going to call
various things; and it's wrong to suppose that Science starts with
a definite notion of "physical law": like "rigorous proof", this
is a notion that has been developed over time.)