Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!utegc!utai!garfield!dalcs!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ut-sally!turpin From: turpin@ut-sally.UUCP Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Definition of science and of scientific method. Message-ID: <8533@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Jul-87 13:11:26 EDT Article-I.D.: ut-sally.8533 Posted: Tue Jul 21 13:11:26 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jul-87 01:43:14 EDT References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM> <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> <930@newton.praxis.co.uk> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 36 Summary: Is classification important? In article <930@newton.praxis.co.uk>, mct@praxis.co.uk (Martyn Thomas) writes: > There is a class of discussion which centres round the following steps: > 1 Select a loosely-defined term (eg science: systematic and formulated > knowledge - OED). > 2 Use it to classify something else (eg Physics is a science) > 3 Import some emotional content (eg *unscientific* as a perjorative) > 4 Start arguing about whether other things fit the classification (eg > AI is not a science). > Such discussions are always fruitless (with the possible exception of > bananas :-), because the issue ostensibly being discussed is unimportant > and the *real* issue (whether AI research is conducted professionally, > whether AI is a subject worth studying in isolation .....) never gets > identified. > Martyn Thomas mct%praxis.uucp@ukc.ac.ukI almost agree with this, but... Consider, for example, creationism. I don't mind it being taught in schools, providing it is in the context of a class on comparative religion, or reactionary philosophy, or similar subject. But it should not be taught in a science class, except perhaps an example of what science is NOT. The reason is simple. Part of what students learn in a science class, through the subject matter as a series of examples, is what science is and how it is done. Including creationism is paving the road for lousy methodology and sloppy thought in future scientests. This is not to say that the currently popular ideas on what constitues science are final, or should not be questioned in the classroom. But like most philosophic knowledge, it cannot be questioned well until it is understood and appreciated. Ignoring current standards results only in nonsense, such as creationism. (If some form of creationism does indeed succeed current scientific thought, an extremely unlikely event, it will not be the twaddle that is currently in vogue.) Russell