Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!bionet!agate!usenet
From: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: The Topic that wouldn't go away (re: sci vs. talk)
Keywords: Objectivism, philosophy, sci.*
Message-ID: <1990Feb2.083825.1899@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 90 08:38:25 GMT
References: <3284@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <3285@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <9442@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <7346@tank.uchicago.edu> <1990Feb1.005817.1786@everexn.uucp> <7402@tank.uchicago.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Organization: Garnet Gang Gems of Wisdom, Inc.
Lines: 18
In-reply-to: rwt1@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Tracinski)

In article <7402@tank.uchicago.edu>, rwt1@tank (Robert Tracinski) writes:

>Somebody raised the idea of a hum.* hierarchy.  Sounds good to me.  That way,
>all of the defenders of the "sci is just for experimental sciences" viewpoint
>are satisfied, and the proponents of SPO don't get dumped in talk.

  That was me. If we follow your idea of putting stuff like econ
there, it should explicitly say in the charter that "hum" is for
the humanities and "human" or social sciences, so we don't get
this argument all over again. My idea is that if a subject area
(e.g., philosophy) is taught at most universities as a Letters &
Science type academic discipline, it should be able to find a
place in either sci or hum.
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/Garnetgangster/Berkeley CA 94720
"We never make assertions,  Miss Taggart,"  said Hugh Akston.  "That is
the moral crime peculiar to our enemies.  We do not tell--we *show*.  We
do not claim--we *prove*." H Akston, the last of the advocates of reason