Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!jeffd From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: A hum hierarchy (was Re: sci.philosophy.objectivism) Summary: Hum or divide sci? Keywords: hierarchy humanities science Message-ID: <-JM12-Exds8@ficc.uu.net> Date: 8 Feb 90 17:04:15 GMT References: <9002080359.AA09579@apee.ogi.edu> Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation Lines: 22 In article , karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: > A new hum hierarchy isn't free. Ten thousand site admins have to do some > fiddling to set up support for it. I'm not sure it's worth it for such > a minor, and still endlessly debatable as to meaning, subdivision. > Karl, I see your point (remember that when considering your insurance needs! ), but I also see the value of distinguishing between 'hard' and 'soft' sciences (that sounds better than saying 'natural' and 'unnatural' sciences {|8^)] ). So perhaps we should divide sci? sci.hard and sci.soft? Or sci.nat and sci.hum? Regardless, the distinction should be made. Your loyal friend who always tells charming single women how great a guy you are, Jeff -- Thank you for not coercing.