Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!labrea!decwrl!pyramid!thirdi!sarge From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: What is science, what is philosophy? Message-ID: <84@thirdi.UUCP> Date: Sat, 8-Aug-87 14:01:32 EDT Article-I.D.: thirdi.84 Posted: Sat Aug 8 14:01:32 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 9-Aug-87 13:19:00 EDT References: <3219@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl> Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Distribution: world Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology Lines: 57 Keywords: logic science philosophy empirical coercion persuasion In article <844@klipper.cs.vu.nl> biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes: >Does every science try to arrive at universal laws? Do you consider >taxonomy (e.g. in biology) a science? Archaeology? Paleontology? Sure. A "pure" discussion of taxonomy, without empirical content, I might classify as philosophy (Nelson Goodman talks at length about different principles of classification, and I'm sure many other philosophers do also). Pure classification schemas, I think, are neither sciences nor philosophies, since they do not involve arriving at universal truths. The Dewey Decimal system, for instance, is in this category. But, of course, zoology and botany, though they may *include* taxonomic systems, *are* sciences, in that they strive to arrive at universal laws regarding animal and plant life, respectively. Archaeology and paleontology are sciences, insofar as they endeavor to arrive at universal laws regarding the way things change over time, the nature of social systems, and the way evolutionary changes occur. They are not sciences, but a form of history, insofar as they address the issue of discovering the specific series of changes that have occurred on this planet. >I don't know quite what you hide under "empirical", but I have a feeling >there is a lot of methodological stuff over there, about how to set up >experiments, what logic to use, etc. Actually, to me empiricality is pretty simple. A idea is empirical if there are some experiences that would tend to verify it and others that would tend to falsify it. It is not empirical if its truth or falsity can be determined independent of specific experiences. >(so if most people >preferred some sort of emotional argument, that would be scientific too, >since there would be a general consensus). You've got an excellent point here. One could easily imagine a consensus based on something quite illogical -- like brute force. Many religions have been established on this basis. Also, one could imagine a consensus based on convincing lies. So maybe some kind of proviso would have to be added about non-application of force (includes use of emotionality) and deception. My revised definition, then, would be: A science is a discipline whose purpose is to arrive at universal empirical laws, whose data is consensually validatable, and where there is a prevalent paradigm that is widely or universally agreed on by other than forceful or deceptive means. I'm assuming, in this definition, that logic and reason are non-coercive. They could almost be *defined* as the art of non-coercive, non-deceptive persuasion. The issue of whether logic *is* non-coercive has been discussed elsewhere in this newsgroup. -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge