Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!rdd
From: rdd@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Real science groups and fake ones
Message-ID: <25202@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 27 Feb 90 16:57:50 GMT
Sender: news@ut-emx.UUCP
Reply-To: rdd@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 60

In article <1990Feb27.102423.20910@agate.berkeley.edu> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>The sci group is carrying as much hard science as any of the other
>>sci groups.  How doesn't it fit into the hierarchy?  It's a sci
>>group, they talk sci.  What's the problem?
>
>  This is false. In a REAL goddamn science group, there are real
>goddamn scientists talking about their special subject as a good
>part of the mix. 

Gee, golly, that would be a SWELL idea, but it has absolutely no bearing on
reality (guess you're not a scientist, or you would have noticed that, huh?).
Gene Spafford's list of active newsgroups gives this definition for "sci":
"Discussions intended as technical in nature and relating to the established 
sciences."  

I (and obviously other people) have interpreted this as: "topics technical in
nature, which don't fit into the comp.* hierarchy, and which are too formal to 
fit into the rec.* hierarchy."  *Tradition* counts for a lot here--sci.* has 
never been some elite "for scientists" stem; it's been "about science."  There 
is no indication of any need to change that.


>If sci.astro had *only* hobbyists talking about
>their 8" Newtonians, it would be just like sci.aquaria, and it
>would be a "rec" group. In fact, sci.astro has astronomers,

Amateur astronomers provide important contributions to the *science* of astron-
omy, bub.


>sci.physics has physicists, sci.math has mathematicians, sci.lang
>has linguists, and so forth for some but not all of the other sci
>groups.  

> These are the real science groups, the rest don't belong.

Thanks for defining the Gospel according to Gene Smith.  Perhaps you could
help me out with a question--in forming sci.aeronautics, I was looking for
an "eng"ineering stem.  Couldn't find one.  Yes, sci.aeronautics split from
rec.aviation, and yes, it does seem to be more applied engineering than any-
thing else.  By your criteria, it doesn't have a place in sci.*, and I'm
alarmed at the possibility of its proper place being rec.*.  Please, do apply 
your superior organizational skills to this problem and solve our quandary.



>  Incidently, anus-breath, follow-up to "misc.test" is a game
               ^^^^^^^^^^^
>for alt.flame or talk.bizarre, not here.

Uh-huh... right...  There sure do seem to be some rather outspoken individuals
permeating the net these days.  Just a few weeks ago, some uptight people not-
ified the universe that comp.graphics was not a *learning* forum, but, rather,
a forum for the esteemed elite, discussing "advanced" topics, and that the
rabble ought not to occupy the bandwidth.  Smith's post strikes me as rep-
resentative of the same close-minded spirit.  Yeah, it'd be nice if use(r)-net 
had antiseptic groups for "scholarly" discussion of materials, but (a) the 
users don't seem to want it, and (b) I have grave doubts as to whether Real 
(TM) academics would risk their reputations on a forum like this (graduate 
students excepted, but do they count?  Naaaah).