Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!ukc!eagle!rjf
From: rjf@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (R.J.Faichney)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Definition of science and of scientific method.
Message-ID: <3219@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 21-Jul-87 08:47:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: eagle.3219
Posted: Tue Jul 21 08:47:16 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jul-87 01:45:01 EDT
References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: rjf@ukc.ac.uk (R.J.Faichney)
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Lines: 30

hilosophers aren't ready yet..
>
>As philosophers don't know how to think, they are very prone to getting
>stuck in their thoughts.

OK, so which philosopher frightened your mother while she was pregnant?

Seriously, though, folks, this may be a linguistic problem, but it looks
like the philosophers need some defending. They think without knowing how
to? Anything unmethodical is philosophical? All I can say is, that I only 
learned how to think [rationally|logically|methodically] when I studied
philosophy, and if I'd never done so, I'd be a lot less use (if possible ;-))
in my present job - research in software tools. Ask anyone who has done
philosophy to any substantial extent (at least a minor) - no matter how
logical, and capable of spotting a falacious argument, you were capable
of being before, you'd be moreso after. Biep, I suggest that you either
make sure you know something about a subject, or phrase your arguments much
more carefully, rather than contribute such an overweening, pontificating
(do you have an English dictionary?) article to the net.

Robin