Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!convex!killer!ames!pasteur!agate!garnet!weemba From: weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Ontological status of sci.philosophy.tech Message-ID: <14572@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 21 Sep 88 16:53:24 GMT References: <1632@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) Organization: Brahms Gang Posting Central Lines: 15 In-reply-to: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) In article <1632@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, gilbert@cs (Gilbert Cockton) writes: >>Perhaps Gilbert Cockton could clarify the ontological status of "Science" >> for us (:-). >There are two sciences: > 1) the activity of people who call themselves scientists > 2) the intellectual artefact of philosophers/philosophisers etc. This and the resurrected "free will vs determinism vs quantum mechanics" debate are probably more appropriate to sci.philosophy.tech. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720