Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: The Topic that wouldn't go away (re: sci vs. talk) Message-ID: <1990Feb7.005905.1037@twwells.com> Date: 7 Feb 90 00:59:05 GMT References: <3284@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <3285@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <9442@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <7346@tank.uchicago.edu> <1990Feb1.005817.1786@everexn.uucp> <1726@milton.acs.washington.edu> Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL Lines: 68 In article <1726@milton.acs.washington.edu> charlie@stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) writes: : In article <1990Feb1.005817.1786@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp : > Maybe some definitions are in order. From Webster's: : > : > science: 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from : > ignorance or misunderstanding. 2: a: a department of systematized : > knowledge as an object of study. b: something that may be learned : > like systematized knowledge. c: one of the natural sciences. 3: a: : > knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws : > esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method. b: such : > knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural : > science. 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with : > scientific laws. : : What you have to understand about this is that some dictionaries take a : very permissive view of definitions. If some native speaker would use the : word "science" in that sense, then that is one definition. The writers of : the dictionary are not making a value judgement that astrology really is a : science, or that people with any brains whatsoever think so, only that : some native speakers would say so. That's not much of a standard. Something that may make a difference: Merriam-Webster's is a descriptive dictionary: it describes the langauge as used. Also, the senses of words are presented in historical order. So, for 'science' we know that they have evidence that science was used as in the first sense in the 14th century (Karen left that out but it is in the book.) : Considering that "science" is such a fad word, everything being called a : "science" by someone, mostly in the spirit of pure craven flackery, it's : no surprise that somewhere out there people are peddling astrological : science, basketweaving science, culinary science, and so forth. But this : so debases the term "science" as to make it virtually meaningless. That is a non sequitur. I would say that you've been mislead by the modern fad of using 'science' to refer to the natural sciences only. 'Science' has been used in the general sense for a very long time. And, if we look at the definitions, keeping in mind their historical ordering, we find that, ignoring the first definition as irrelevant, the *very first* use of science is the general one. And nearly the latest is the use for `natural science'. : So what? The question remains: is there anyone who cares enough about the : meaning of words to deserve the name "philosopher" who would call : philosophy a science? : : I wouldn't think so. But then you'd be wrong. Very few philosophers would say that philosophy is a science, as in `physical science', but few would argue against it being a science in the broad sense. BTW, Merriam-Webster will answer specific questions on words if you write to them. Get a copy of their dictionary and look in the back for the details. I suppose I should add that I've worked with these guys and, of course, I believe that they know what they are talking about. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com "We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_