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