Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!mcdchg!ditka!teraida!vsi1!daver!llustig!xanadu!apple!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: SCI.PHILOSOPHY.OBJECTIVISM Keywords: Objectivism, newsgroup, science Message-ID: <1990Jan28.205450.8195@twwells.com> Date: 28 Jan 90 20:54:50 GMT References: <1990Jan27.003806.4520@twwells.com> <9001280011.AA28097@apee.ogi.edu> <1990Jan28.071453.21741@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL Lines: 34 Certain Objectivists have, among many, a standard accusation: they'll accuse you of "equivocating" when you don't use a word they way the want you to. This time, however, the shoe is on the other foot. The position for sci rests on an equivocation between two definitions of the word "science". The definition of science they are relying on is `organized body of knowledge'. Yes, it is a valid definition. And yes, Objectivism is an organized body of knowledge. So, in that sense, Objectivism is a science. So also is creation science. Ugh. The other definition of science, the one that is operative in the sci hierarchy, is the science of "science and technology". Obviously, no general philosophy, including Objectivism, qualifies under that definition of science. I doubt that the Objectivists who are equivocating will be paying any attention, so you can expect to see more debate wherein they continue to assert that Objectivism is a science. Regardless of the irrelevancy of that point. Since that point has been adequately dealt with, there is no further reason for answering them. However, for those that do, please feel free to borrow my signature quote. :-) --- 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_