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.uk   

I 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