Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rochester!rutgers!husc6!ut-sally!turpin From: turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Definition of science and of scientific method. Message-ID: <8550@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Thu, 23-Jul-87 12:40:54 EDT Article-I.D.: ut-sally.8550 Posted: Thu Jul 23 12:40:54 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 08:03:03 EDT References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM> <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> <2385@ames.arpa.R> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 13 Summary: Historical vs. scientific predictions. In article <2385@ames.arpa.R>, eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) writes: > This is why our science can predict the new discoveries of > superconductivity right? (sorry, I didn't want to sound too sarcastic, > since we don't have a theory.) > --eugene miya The prediction of a discovery, which is a human act, would be more of a historical, rather than scientific, nature. (I do not pretend to address the issue of whether history can be done scientifically, or how much historical logic is required to do science, etc.) Russell