Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!panix!gcf
From: gcf@panix.UUCP (J. S. B'ach)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Sci vs. talk for Objectivism
Message-ID: <845@panix.UUCP>
Date: 2 Feb 90 18:11:12 GMT
References: <D751=X6xds8@ficc.uu.net> <7J91MN8xds12@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: gcf@panix.UUCP (Gordon Fitch)
Organization: Beauty in the Beast
Lines: 30

In article <7J91MN8xds12@ficc.uu.net> karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) writes:
)>After reading the discussions of what is and is not appropriate
)>for sci, I have to concur that talk.philosophy.objectivism or
)>talk.objectivism would be more appropriate.
)
)I agree with Jeff.  I am not surprised to see people still pushing for the 
)inappropriate sci category, this being usenet after all.  Nonetheless 
)I had hoped that xanthian@saturn.ads.com's comments would have ended
)those attempts, to wit:
)
)>The premier modern discriminator between science and non-science is
)>that a science must produce hypotheses/theorems which are
)>"falsifiable"; in the context of the current discussion, that means
)>that if I produce _one_ instance in which your system/theory
)>demonstrably fails, you will stop arguing with me that it is right, go
)>away, and fix it. ...
)>This is not a characteristic of any system of philosophy of which I am
)>aware. ...

Actually, there are fairly unresolvable controversies in most
sciences, especially those where theories can't be subjected to
highly controlled experimentation, for example psychology and
sociology.  I think the dispute over whether or not Objectivism
fits into the sci.* hierarchy simply shows the vanity of the
hierarchical system.  Similar arguments could be made for other
bodies of knowledge: sci.scientology, sci.literary-criticism,
sci.theology.Roman-Catholic.  The argument becomes one about the
validity of Objectivism, which is beside the point; what should
matter is whether a lot of people want to read about it or not,
not whether we collectively think it's valid or verifiable.