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