Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: reorganization? (Was: SCI.PHILOSOPHY.OBJECTIVISM) Message-ID: <1990Feb7.215942.9160@twwells.com> Date: 7 Feb 90 21:59:42 GMT References: <3284@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <2018@cjsa.WA.COM> <5056@convex.convex.com> Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL Lines: 77 In article Thomas Gramstad writes: : I believe that the core problem of this discussion is the somewhat haphazard : way the humanities are dealt with in the USENET hierarchy; disciplines and : issues from the humanities are scattered all over the hierarchy, or at least : in three subhierarchies, namely sci, talk and soc. Maybe some of the rec groups and comp.society? : I believe the optimum : solution would be the creation of a hum-hierarchy, as suggested by somebody : last week, although I understand that the thought of such a measure, which : would include reorganization of some groups, might dismay the people who would : have to do this work and some of the people affected by it. Creation of a new hierarchy is not a trivial process. Unlike new group creation, which, for many people, is done automatically, creating a new hierarchy requires explicit editing of most people's configuration files and at least some contact with one's newsfeeds. : There would however be several benefits: : : 1. A consequent treatment and placement of the humanities Yes. The humanities are, as you say, not really considered as the distinct thing they are. : 2. The strict definition of the sci-hierarchy would not any more be violated; : it could be restricted to technical and/or natural sciences That would really help. We could, after the hierarchy is established, work to get the definition of sci tightened up. : 3. A solution to current inconsistencies, such as sci.econ, sci.education, : sci.psychology, sci.philosophy.meta etc -- these would be relocated to hum Along with a lot of other things. The decisions and effort to transfer them will not come easily. : 4. Everything related to philosophy would be located in the same hierarchy; Sci.philosophy.tech would not, I think. One could argue it either way, but the kind of things that normally appear on the group are much more related to the sciences than to philosophy. : hum would comprise groups for general philosophy, and for specific aspects : or disciplines of philosophy as well as groups for specific philosophies. : Discussions whether philosophy or philosophies are sciences or not would : not clutter up discussions of their creation, and their location would not : be a "prestige issue" -- it would not be an issue at all. And wouldn't that be nice! : Vote yes to hum.philosophy.objectivism : -- and hum.philosophy.* Creating a new hierarchy is a time- and effort consuming process; it won't happen overnight or likely even in the next month. Accordingly, I've issued a call for votes for talk.philosophy.objectivism but will actively press for transferring it to the hum hierarchy if and when such gets created. So, would someone want to make creating a hum hierarchy an official proposal? If no one else volunteers by the weekend, I'll offer to coordinate the ideas for the hierarchy and write a formal proposal for creating it. --- 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_