ethic
et
Would that be an ethic ? and the female form would be ......?
My webster does not mention it, neither do the dictionaries on the net....
thank you
Erik
Schainbaum, Robert
an ethicist.
--
R. Schainbaum
Spike: "You won. All right? You came in, and you killed them and you
took
their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and
he's not going around saying, 'I came, I conquered, I felt really bad
about
it.'"
BtVS, "Pangs"
et
nice discussion..
Erik
"Schainbaum, Robert" <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote in message
news:3CEFBB71...@Berlin.DE...
et
"Schainbaum, Robert" <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote in message
news:3CEFBCE4...@Berlin.DE...
> Not in the US and UK, no. Where you from?
Mason Barge
<Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
>In the Anglo-American tradition only the exact and empirical sciences
>are considered to be science. There's no concept of both science and
>philosophy as Wissenschaft. Indeed, the diversity of views within
>philosophy makes it assuredly unscientific in the English-speaking
>world.
There is some science in philosophy, notably symbolic logic. A lot of
philosophy was considered science in the past, but does not meet more
modern concepts of rigorous proof.
--
Mason Barge
"People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Mark Wallace
> that was quick. thank you. philosophy is not a science ? hm....
> would make a nice discussion..
No, it isn't.
Science is a philosophy. Always has been.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Wallace
jan_...@hotmail.com
My Webster mentions "ethicist", but makes no mention of it being a
science. Nor distinguishes between a male or female physicist. I
thought female-male appellations were the same these days.
(Is a webster someone who surfs the web?)
Jan Sand
Don Phillipson
news:acodtr$3cs$1...@reader09.wxs.nl...
> What is the english word for a scientist who studies ethics ?
> Would that be an ethic ? and the female form would be ......?
The current word is "ethicist."
Supplementary:
1. Ethics is classically one of the specialities in
philosophy (with aesthetics, logic, metaphysics, etc.)
Nowadays only a minority of ethicists have formal
training in philosophy: most work as consultants
(for business, medicine, government, etc.)
2. English reserves "scientist" for investigators in
the natural sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.)
Some scholarly professions (e.g. history) are divided
whether their discipline should be called a science
or not: others e.g. sociology have no doubt theirs
is a "social science" practised by "social scientists."
The French talk about "the human sciences" as
encompassing disciplines like philosophy, but
English speakers rarely do, unless either Canadian
or otherwise in close affinity with French thought.
When in doubt, say "scientist" in English only to
indicate a natural scientist. Other people can be
usually be labeled more precisely, as an ethicist,
historian, economist, etc.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
dphil...@trytel.com.com.com.less2
Sebastian Hew
> that was quick. thank you. philosophy is not a science ? hm.... would make
a
> nice discussion..
Philosophy is typically taught in the Faculty of Arts in English-language
universities.
Sebastian.
Schainbaum, Robert
There's your answer. The distinction between science and other stuff
derives from organizational structure.
Jerry
a
> nice discussion..
Physics was taught as Natural Philosophy until early-mid 20th Century. I
think the change only occurred because of the increasing specialisation of
the different branches of Natural Philosophy.
Odysseus
>
> > that was quick. thank you. philosophy is not a science ? hm....
> > would make a nice discussion..
>
> No, it isn't.
> Science is a philosophy. Always has been.
>
--Odysseus
meirman
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> posted:
>et wrote:
>
>> that was quick. thank you. philosophy is not a science ? hm....
>> would make a nice discussion..
>
>No, it isn't.
>Science is a philosophy. Always has been.
I think phience is a scilosophy
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
Raymond S. Wise
> On Sat, 25 May 2002 18:51:55 +0200, "Schainbaum, Robert"
> <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
>
> >In the Anglo-American tradition only the exact and empirical sciences
> >are considered to be science. There's no concept of both science and
> >philosophy as Wissenschaft. Indeed, the diversity of views within
> >philosophy makes it assuredly unscientific in the English-speaking
> >world.
>
> There is some science in philosophy, notably symbolic logic. A lot of
> philosophy was considered science in the past, but does not meet more
> modern concepts of rigorous proof.
It depends upon what one means by "science." I think of science as a
discipline which enables us to make true statements about the world.
Symbolic logic and mathematics do not allow us to do so: they are
essentially games with rigid rules, in which a given statement's
truth-value can be decided unquestionably. In order to apply symbolic
logic to the real world it is necessary to establish correspondence
rules, such as "One drop plus one drop equals one drop" and "One
pebble plus one pebble equals two pebbles." (I first saw this pointed
out by Martin Gardner, but it is, of course, not original with him.)
To paraphrase Gardner, when it comes right down to it, a mathematical
proof is essentially as tautological as a statement such as "There are
12 eggs in a dozen eggs."
(Gardner is, however--as I am--impressed by the extent to which
mathematics of *all* different types turns out to be useful in
describing the world.)
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Dr Robin Bignall
But when graduate scientists go on to get a higher degree, it's called
a 'doctorate of philosophy'. In my day, though, we didn't get any
lectures about the sort of philosophy and philosophers that you are
thinking about, unfortunately. The boundary between philosophy and
theoretical physics is quite fascinating, IMO.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
Dave Fawthrop
Hash: SHA1
"Dr Robin Bignall" <docr...@red.sylvania> wrote in message
news:vn61fu8tvji7da60p...@4ax.com...
| But when graduate scientists go on to get a higher degree, it's called
| a 'doctorate of philosophy'. In my day, though, we didn't get any
| lectures about the sort of philosophy and philosophers that you are
| thinking about, unfortunately. The boundary between philosophy and
| theoretical physics is quite fascinating, IMO.
Well I did not get any lectures of any sort during my PhD, and never
thought about philosophy for a moment. All my four years was spent
designing and writing a new and innovative program. Why I am now a
"Doctor of Philosophy" escapes me completely, and is IMO totally daft.
- --
Dave Fawthrop <da...@hyphenologist.co.uk> Some of my hobbies:
VDU Glasses http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/vduglass, Wordlists ../wordlist
Celtic fonts ../celtic, Killfile & Anti Troll FAQs ../killfile
Yorkshire Dialect ../songs, Curry Project ../bradfordcurryproject
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPPCrOJ53Yvp2WrV4EQK3DwCgg84zWsRPkZQlPecDsmBvg8cdyMUAoOwG
PzApakc9eDtgNC/1gsugch0i
=fPVQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike Stevens
news:47dd044c.02052...@posting.google.com...
> (Gardner is, however--as I am--impressed by the extent to which
> mathematics of *all* different types turns out to be useful in
> describing the world.)
That may be because logic and mathematics describe one mode of functioning
of the human mind. While the physical world isn't part of the functioning
of the human mind, our perception of it is. So maths is useful in analysing
our perceptions of outside "reality", which are, by definition, all we can
know of it.
--
Mike Stevens, boat Felis Catus II
"Me cogitare credo, ergo me esse credo." (Rainy Day Carts)
web site http://www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Mike Stevens
news:acq9vm$r80h0$1...@ID-88541.news.dfncis.de...
> Well I did not get any lectures of any sort during my PhD, and never
> thought about philosophy for a moment. All my four years was spent
> designing and writing a new and innovative program. Why I am now a
> "Doctor of Philosophy" escapes me completely, and is IMO totally daft.
I don't know where you did your PhD, but when I did mine (University of
London, 1960s) the definition of what the degree stood for was something
about showing proficiency in the techniques of research in their chosen
subject area. This clearly applies, mutatis mutandis, to any subject area
you choose.
--
Mike Stevens, boat Felis Catus II
Old mathematicians never die. They simply count for less.
Web site http://www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Schainbaum, Robert
PhD is a catchall advanced degree for students in English as well as
Physics. Is physics a philosophical discipline? Not unless you reads
lots of SciFi.
Please, I will neither read nor respond to hate posts from mindless
SciFi fans.
Albert Marshall
Wise <mpl...@my-deja.com> writes>1311gaqa...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 25 May 2002 18:51:55 +0200, "Schainbaum, Robert"
>> <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
>>
>> >In the Anglo-American tradition only the exact and empirical sciences
>> >are considered to be science. There's no concept of both science and
>> >philosophy as Wissenschaft. Indeed, the diversity of views within
>> >philosophy makes it assuredly unscientific in the English-speaking
>> >world.
>>
>> There is some science in philosophy, notably symbolic logic. A lot of
>> philosophy was considered science in the past, but does not meet more
>> modern concepts of rigorous proof.
>
>
>It depends upon what one means by "science." I think of science as a
>discipline which enables us to make true statements about the world.
When it comes to science there is only physics -- everything else is
stamp collecting.
(I wish I could remember the source of this statement, with which I
heartily concur.)
--
Albert Marshall
Database Developer
Marshall Le Botmel Ltd
01242 222017
Schainbaum, Robert
>
> "Dave Fawthrop" <hyp...@hyphenologist.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:acq9vm$r80h0$1...@ID-88541.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > Well I did not get any lectures of any sort during my PhD, and never
> > thought about philosophy for a moment. All my four years was spent
> > designing and writing a new and innovative program. Why I am now a
> > "Doctor of Philosophy" escapes me completely, and is IMO totally daft.
>
> I don't know where you did your PhD, but when I did mine (University of
> London, 1960s) the definition of what the degree stood for was something
> about showing proficiency in the techniques of research in their chosen
> subject area. This clearly applies, mutatis mutandis, to any subject area
> you choose.
Does this mean that the PhD holder knows something about philosophy or
does it mean that he's done some research in a narrow field of study?
Dave Fawthrop
Hash: SHA1
"Mike Stevens" <mike...@which.net> wrote in message
news:UI2I8.8274$Uk6.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
| "Dave Fawthrop" <hyp...@hyphenologist.co.uk> wrote in message
| news:acq9vm$r80h0$1...@ID-88541.news.dfncis.de...
|
| > Well I did not get any lectures of any sort during my PhD, and never
| > thought about philosophy for a moment. All my four years was spent
| > designing and writing a new and innovative program. Why I am now a
| > "Doctor of Philosophy" escapes me completely, and is IMO totally daft.
|
| I don't know where you did your PhD, but when I did mine (University of
| London, 1960s) the definition of what the degree stood for was something
| about showing proficiency in the techniques of research in their chosen
| subject area. This clearly applies, mutatis mutandis, to any subject
| area you choose.
Something like that, but the main point was doing something new, and
extending human knowledge. But absolutely *no* mention of philosophy.
- --
Dave Fawthrop <da...@hyphenologist.co.uk> Killfile and Anti Troll FAQs
at http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPPDPeJ53Yvp2WrV4EQI2tACgmERpx3yzx+rx30vcxcpokS2oFA8AoL7c
CWl/a2FfnqeKl4KQmoSgrrOh
=xR7U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
jan_...@hotmail.com
<mike...@which.net> wrote:
>That may be because logic and mathematics describe one mode of functioning
>of the human mind. While the physical world isn't part of the functioning
>of the human mind, our perception of it is. So maths is useful in analysing
>our perceptions of outside "reality", which are, by definition, all we can
>know of it.
"The physical world is not part of the functioning of the human mind"
is a very odd statement. Where do you assume the human mind exists?
Jan Sand
Dr Robin Bignall
Ha! As a physicist I suppose I should agree, but I'd feel on stronger
ground if we could actually write the wave equation which describes
the membership of AEU and predicts who is going to say what, and when;
and then solve it. Knowing that everything is made up of quarks
doesn't help us predict tomorrow's weather.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
Dr Robin Bignall
<Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
>Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 26 May 2002 01:57:15 +0200, "Schainbaum, Robert"
>> <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
>>
>> >Sebastian Hew wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "et" <e_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:acoe9k$3ij$1...@reader09.wxs.nl...
>> >>
>> >> > that was quick. thank you. philosophy is not a science ? hm.... would make
>> >> a
>> >> > nice discussion..
>> >>
>> >> Philosophy is typically taught in the Faculty of Arts in English-language
>> >> universities.
>> >
>> >There's your answer. The distinction between science and other stuff
>> >derives from organizational structure.
>>
>> But when graduate scientists go on to get a higher degree, it's called
>> a 'doctorate of philosophy'. In my day, though, we didn't get any
>> lectures about the sort of philosophy and philosophers that you are
>> thinking about, unfortunately. The boundary between philosophy and
>> theoretical physics is quite fascinating, IMO.
>
>PhD is a catchall advanced degree for students in English as well as
>Physics. Is physics a philosophical discipline? Not unless you reads
>lots of SciFi.
>
If philosophy is simply the love of wisdom, then yes, it is. The
subject of whether physics has to lead ultimately to materialism or
not could fill a newsgroup on its own.
SciFi, OTOH, is fiction, and fiction can cover any subject matter,
lightly or seriously.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
david56
>
> When it comes to science there is only physics -- everything else is
> stamp collecting.
It's true of course, although I don't normally quote the initial
phrase. "There is only physics - everything else is stamp collecting."
I said this to my daughter's physics teacher at last year's parents
evening - he started asking me about stamp collecting.
--
David
=====
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I will change it to keep ahead of the
spammers.
david56
>
> When it comes to science there is only physics -- everything else is
> stamp collecting.
>
> (I wish I could remember the source of this statement, with which I
> heartily concur.)
The Net is of the opinion that it was said by Ernest Rutherford - a very
great man associated with (where else?) Manchester University.
david56
>
> PhD is a catchall advanced degree for students in English as well as
> Physics. Is physics a philosophical discipline? Not unless you reads
> lots of SciFi.
>
> Please, I will neither read nor respond to hate posts from mindless
> SciFi fans.
Will you consider moderate comments from intelligent SF readers?
Mark Wallace
It's only called "natural philosophy" now, because elements of it
have branched out and commandeered the name 'philosophy'.
All of the sciences began as elements of philosophy, and I can't see
any good reason for thinking any other way about them.
Don Phillipson
Mason Barge
I'm not going out to do a wad of research, but I'm sure "Doctor of
Philosophy" is a purely historical honorific, signalling the highest
degree of education in any field of research. It has little to do
with philosophy, except historically.
Today it generally signifies some sort of academic or research
emphasis. Attorneys in the US receive a Juris Doctor degree, which
replaced the earlier Bachelor of Laws degree at nearly every law
school, since it signifies three years of postgraduate study.
Attorneys who want to continue their studies in an academic rather
than a practical sense can pursue a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence, but a law
school faculty will not view a Ph.D. holder as better-educated than a
J.D holder.
The one exception I know of is medicine, which I don't believe has a
general Ph.D. program. Physicians can and do pursue Ph.D. degrees in
any aspect of medicine, however, such as anatomy, pharmacology, etc.,
and some professors at medical schools and some outstanding medical
researchers do not hold an M.D. degree. This is a bit different than
law schools, where a J.D. degree is very nearly a requirement to
teach, reflecting the different natures of the disciplines.
Anyway, in practical terms, a Ph.D. signifies sufficient preparation
to teach university or graduate school courses in the US system of
higher education. Almost the only general exception (that I know of)
is in professional schools, where the professional degree has full
dignity for teachers.
--
Mason Barge
"People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Mark Wallace
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>>
>> Odysseus wrote:
>>> Mark Wallace wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> that was quick. thank you. philosophy is not a science ?
>>>>> hm.... would make a nice discussion..
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>> Science is a philosophy. Always has been.
>>>>
>>> Cf. "natural philosophy", which was more or less what we now
>>> call "science".
>>
>> It's only called "natural philosophy" now, because elements of it
>> have branched out and commandeered the name 'philosophy'.
>>
>> All of the sciences began as elements of philosophy, and I can't
>> see any good reason for thinking any other way about them.
>
> subsequently rose above it?
I don't know about 'rose above', but became more studied. The thing
currently being called 'philosophy' is only a shadow of what it used
to be, because so much of it has been pared off into things which
are called by other names.
A quick look in my desk dictionary gives the definition of
philosophy:
"Love, study, or pursuit, of wisdom or knowledge, esp. that which
deals with ultimate reality, or with the most general causes and
principles of things"
What it leaves out is, IMO:
"... But once the objects of that study start to make sense and be
provable, they are stripped away from philosophy, and handed to one
of the sciences".
Dave Fawthrop
Hash: SHA1
"Schainbaum, Robert" <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote in message
news:3CF0D5C9...@Berlin.DE...
| Please, I will neither read nor respond to hate posts from mindless
| SciFi fans.
Ouch I love Sci Fi.
Dave F
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPPDcwZ53Yvp2WrV4EQIyQgCfVGPMF3mu47eWflLOtdyeGjk4ZFEAn1Cu
b/LRxlFftKwGEVZCDFFfzEVP
=0Y5G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Schainbaum, Robert
> >
> > So in the History of Science the sciences began as philosophy but
> > subsequently rose above it?
>
> I don't know about 'rose above', but became more studied. The thing
> currently being called 'philosophy' is only a shadow of what it used
> to be, because so much of it has been pared off into things which
> are called by other names.
>
> A quick look in my desk dictionary gives the definition of
> philosophy:
Oh no! It's the dictionary.
>
> "Love, study, or pursuit, of wisdom or knowledge, esp. that which
> deals with ultimate reality, or with the most general causes and
> principles of things"
>
> What it leaves out is, IMO:
>
> "... But once the objects of that study start to make sense and be
> provable, they are stripped away from philosophy, and handed to one
> of the sciences".
This is good, actually. The sciences (English-sense here) are built on
falsifiable claims. Some may take the view that philosophy includes
both falsifiable and non-falsifiable claims.
david56
>
> The one exception I know of is medicine, which I don't believe has a
> general Ph.D. program. Physicians can and do pursue Ph.D. degrees in
> any aspect of medicine, however, such as anatomy, pharmacology, etc.,
> and some professors at medical schools and some outstanding medical
> researchers do not hold an M.D. degree. This is a bit different than
> law schools, where a J.D. degree is very nearly a requirement to
> teach, reflecting the different natures of the disciplines.
Most UK doctors possess a collection of bachelors degrees - the MD is
pretty uncommon. So "Doctor" for most medics is just a courtesy title,
not a qualification.
--
David
Schainbaum, Robert
>
> Mason Barge wrote:
> >
> > The one exception I know of is medicine, which I don't believe has a
> > general Ph.D. program. Physicians can and do pursue Ph.D. degrees in
> > any aspect of medicine, however, such as anatomy, pharmacology, etc.,
> > and some professors at medical schools and some outstanding medical
> > researchers do not hold an M.D. degree. This is a bit different than
> > law schools, where a J.D. degree is very nearly a requirement to
> > teach, reflecting the different natures of the disciplines.
>
> Most UK doctors possess a collection of bachelors degrees - the MD is
> pretty uncommon. So "Doctor" for most medics is just a courtesy title,
> not a qualification.
The law schools in the US all list their faculty as Dr. Lying Shyster
(example name) in virtue of the Juris Doctor.
Steve Hayes
>that was quick. thank you. philosophy is not a science ? hm.... would make a
>nice discussion..
In English, "science" usually means "natural science". This causes confusion
in some texts translated from other languages where words that have a broader
meaning are translated into English as "science" or "scientific".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mike Stevens
"Schainbaum, Robert" <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote in message
> Mike Stevens wrote:
> > I don't know where you did your PhD, but when I did mine (University of
> > London, 1960s) the definition of what the degree stood for was something
> > about showing proficiency in the techniques of research in their chosen
> > subject area. This clearly applies, mutatis mutandis, to any subject
area
> > you choose.
>
> Does this mean that the PhD holder knows something about philosophy or
> does it mean that he's done some research in a narrow field of study?
Definitely the latter. If other fields of study are anything like the one
in which I worked (Algebra), then anyone who goes on to do further research
after their PhD (which I didn't) will probably look back on their PhD years
as the time when they were working on the narrowest front. After
surmounting that hurdle, many academics start to widen their professional
interests.
Mike Stevens
news:3cf0e02e....@east.usenetserver.com...
> On Sun, 26 May 2002 11:17:13 +0100, "Mike Stevens"
> <mike...@which.net> wrote:
> >That may be because logic and mathematics describe one mode of
functioning
> >of the human mind. While the physical world isn't part of the
functioning
> >of the human mind, our perception of it is. So maths is useful in
analysing
> >our perceptions of outside "reality", which are, by definition, all we
can
> >know of it.
Surely the link is the other way round - the human mind (or at least the
biological gubbins which holds it, which you may or may not consider to be
the same thing) is part of the physical world.
--
Mike Stevens, boat Felis Catus II
I didn't believe in re-incarnation last time, either.
Web site http://www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Mike Stevens
Mike Stevens
news:d1s1fugh63fubkdfi...@4ax.com...
> I'm not going out to do a wad of research, but I'm sure "Doctor of
> Philosophy" is a purely historical honorific, signalling the highest
> degree of education in any field of research.
That's not the case in the UK. There are higher degrees than PhD, whose
titles do refer to the (broad) category of knowledge studied, such as
"Doctor of Science". In the University of London in my day, the DSc was
awarded on the basis of at least 20 years' record of significant research.
So, one wonders, what higher degree would be awarded to someone whose life's
work had been in one of the filed generally recognised as Philosophy? My
best guess is DLit (Doctor of Letters), which seems to cover an immense
range.
Interestingly many medical doctors in the UK don't actually hold a doctorate
as defined by the Universities, but instead hold two "first" degrees,
Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery.
--
Mike Stevens, boat Felis Catus II
No man is an island. So is Man.
Web site http://www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Molly
david56 (david56 <bass.a...@ntlworld.com>) wrote
>Most UK doctors possess a collection of bachelors degrees - the MD is
>pretty uncommon. So "Doctor" for most medics is just a courtesy title,
>not a qualification.
I think that it arose in order to distinguish a physician[1] from a mere
surgeon (nothing more than a barber-cum-tradesman, donchaknow) who was
obliged to refer to himself as Mr.
Now, of course, surgeons (both medical and dental) wear the badge Mr
with pride, as raising their status above that of a mere Dr.
[1] Patrick O'Brian addicts will be familiar with Maturin's high status
as a qualified physician, well above that of an ordinary ship's surgeon.
--
Molly
If I'd known I'd be this thirsty this morning, I'd have drunk more last night.
Mason Barge
The British have done well to hold out against degree inflation.
Even with the foolishness that exists in the UK, I don't think you
have our infestation of utterly brain-dead people calling themselves
"Doctor". I'm not talking about people whose ideas I disagree with;
I'm talking about people whose educational attainment is short of what
I thought was required for graduation from high school.
Not surprisingly, the very worst of the lot are in the field of
"education", i.e. methods of teaching schoolchildren to age 18.
Mason Barge
<dphil...@trytel.com> wrote:
>"et" <e_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I'll quibble just a bit, here. The concept of social science meets
with some well-deserved ridicule, due to a large contention of idiots
claiming the mantle. Some of the social sciences, however, do indeed
speak the language of mathematics and speak it well, in the hands of a
good practitioner.
That is how I would divide science from the liberal arts. Science
uses math, others use language. Fine arts, I suppose, often use
specialized "languages" in the broader definition of language,
although all of them are capable of direct appreciation, i.e. not
mediated by a learned code.
Mark Wallace
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So in the History of Science the sciences began as philosophy
>>> but subsequently rose above it?
>>
>> I don't know about 'rose above', but became more studied. The
>> thing currently being called 'philosophy' is only a shadow of
>> what it used to be, because so much of it has been pared off
>> into things which are called by other names.
>>
>> A quick look in my desk dictionary gives the definition of
>> philosophy:
>
> Oh no! It's the dictionary.
Even worse: the comma after 'pursuit' is actually there; it's not a
typo on my part.
>> "Love, study, or pursuit, of wisdom or knowledge, esp. that which
>> deals with ultimate reality, or with the most general causes and
>> principles of things"
>>
>> What it leaves out is, IMO:
>>
>> "... But once the objects of that study start to make sense and
>> be provable, they are stripped away from philosophy, and handed
>> to one of the sciences".
>
> This is good, actually. The sciences (English-sense here) are
> built on falsifiable claims. Some may take the view that
> philosophy includes both falsifiable and non-falsifiable claims.
Yup. Of the great philosophers of the ancient world, most of them
would be called mathematicians or physicists, today.
jan_...@hotmail.com
<mike...@which.net> wrote:
>
>Surely the link is the other way round - the human mind (or at least the
>biological gubbins which holds it, which you may or may not consider to be
>the same thing) is part of the physical world.
I would think that they are intimately associated in both directions.
Jan Sand
Mason Barge
<Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
>Mason Barge wrote:
>
>> That is how I would divide science from the liberal arts.
>
>Mathematics is one of the liberal art. So also are grammar and
>rhetoric
I probably should have said humanities instead of liberal arts. Less
baggage. No doubt astronomy was one of the traditional liberal arts,
too.
>> Science
>> uses math, others use language.
>
>Biology?
Your point has some validity, but I would note, a brief check of one
course catalogue indicated that coursework in calculus, statistics,
and physics are required for the major. Same sort of thing with
geology, another traditionally non-quantitative science that is headed
more and more towards math.
Bob Stahl
> What is the english word for a scientist who studies ethics ?
> Would that be an ethic ? and the female form would be ......?
> on the net....
Ethics are an integral part of both professional practice and
academic work in science and engineering, and are significant
with regard to professional licensing, so you could say that
all scientists and engineers are ethicists with regard to their
profession or area of study. One hopes, anyway. Universities
include ethics in most degree programs, scientific or otherwise,
as far as I know.
Specialists in the ethics of the sciences, or among scientific
professions, might come from backgrounds in law, anthropology,
theology, political science, or the sciences themselves. I
would hesitate to call them "ethicists" because ethics is only
one of many social aspects of science. Ian Barbour, author of
a book ("Ethics in an Age of Technology") used in a required
ethics course in one of the engineering departments at
Berkeley, was a physicist who worked with Fermi after WWII,
subsequently studied religion at the Yale Divinity School,
and initiated a program in Science, Technology and Public
Policy at Carleton College. I satisfied a portion of my own
breadth requirement in engineering by taking an anthropology
course in social and cultural control (taught by Laura Nader),
which touched on many aspects of science in society, but
professional engineering ethics were covered in a required
undergraduate course.
A quote from Barbour: "No discipline has all the answers."
"Bioethics" is a term which www.m-w.com dates to 1971 --
"a discipline dealing with the ethical implications of
biological research and applications especially in medicine".
"Bioethicist" has become a profession, for better or worse.
"Geoethics", "econoethics", "ethnoethics", "anthropoethics",
show up on a few university or other web pages, as does
"engineering ethics", "atomic ethics", "chemical ethics",
and so on. That medical or biological professionals either
require or attract hired-gun professionals specializing in
ethics is antithetical what I consider to be individual and
collective social responsibility, but perhaps it has its
place in the scheme of things. A little interdisciplinary
study is good for the soul, even if it produces a few
awkward neologisms.
--
Bob Stahl
david56
>
> On Sun, 26 May 2002 15:13:13 +0100, david56 <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> }Albert Marshall wrote:
> }>
> }> When it comes to science there is only physics -- everything else is
> }> stamp collecting.
> }>
> }> (I wish I could remember the source of this statement, with which I
> }> heartily concur.)
> }
> }The Net is of the opinion that it was said by Ernest Rutherford - a very
> }great man associated with (where else?) Manchester University.
>
There are three universities in Manchester, and one across the river in
Salford, but only one of them is Manchester University. Although I hear
there are moves to reintegrate UMIST back into Manchester University,
from which it was separated in 1967, before which it was the Faculty of
Technology.
--
David
david56
>
> On Sun, 26 May 2002 15:15:13 +0100, david56 <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> }"Schainbaum, Robert" wrote:
> }>
> }> PhD is a catchall advanced degree for students in English as well as
> }> Physics. Is physics a philosophical discipline? Not unless you reads
> }> lots of SciFi.
> }>
> }> Please, I will neither read nor respond to hate posts from mindless
> }> SciFi fans.
> }
> }Will you consider moderate comments from intelligent SF readers?
>
Ooooh. I've never been called an oxymoron before. Ordinary moron,
certainly.
--
David
Sebastian Hew
"Richard Ashton" <'{R}'@semolina.org> wrote in message
> Manchester has a number of "Universities"
Why is the fact that a city may have more than one university so often
pointed out? Sydney has a large number of universities, but when one speaks
of 'Sydney University', it can only refer to the 'University of Sydney'.
Similarly, Manchester University is unambiguous.
Sebastian.
Robert Bannister
> On Sun, 26 May 2002 13:20:00 +0100, Albert Marshall
> <alb...@execfrog.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <47dd044c.02052...@posting.google.com>, Raymond S.
> >Wise <mpl...@my-deja.com> writes
> >>Mason Barge <masonbar...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<tbrveukk8o49ck67f
> >>1311gaqa...@4ax.com>...
> >>> On Sat, 25 May 2002 18:51:55 +0200, "Schainbaum, Robert"
> >>> <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >In the Anglo-American tradition only the exact and empirical sciences
> >>> >are considered to be science. There's no concept of both science and
> >>> >philosophy as Wissenschaft. Indeed, the diversity of views within
> >>> >philosophy makes it assuredly unscientific in the English-speaking
> >>> >world.
> >>>
> >>> There is some science in philosophy, notably symbolic logic. A lot of
> >>> philosophy was considered science in the past, but does not meet more
> >>> modern concepts of rigorous proof.
> >>
> >>
> >>It depends upon what one means by "science." I think of science as a
> >>discipline which enables us to make true statements about the world.
> ><...>
> >
> >When it comes to science there is only physics -- everything else is
> >stamp collecting.
> >
> >(I wish I could remember the source of this statement, with which I
> >heartily concur.)
>
> Ha! As a physicist I suppose I should agree, but I'd feel on stronger
> ground if we could actually write the wave equation which describes
> the membership of AEU and predicts who is going to say what, and when;
> and then solve it. Knowing that everything is made up of quarks
> doesn't help us predict tomorrow's weather.
Quark is a kind of cottage cheese, isn't it? Perhaps more useful for weather
conditions on the moon.
--
Rob Bannister
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The one exception I know of is medicine, which I don't believe has a
> general Ph.D. program. Physicians can and do pursue Ph.D. degrees
> in any aspect of medicine, however, such as anatomy, pharmacology,
> etc.,
I think that this is much the same as with engineering. At my alma
mater, Stanford, at least, you can get a general Master of Science
degree in engineering (MSE) and you can get an "Engineer" degree, but
if you want to go further, there is no general Ph.D. in engineering.
Rather you have to pick a specific department, as you have to in the
med school if you want a Ph.D.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing.
| Dean Thompson
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Schainbaum, Robert
>
> On Sun, 26 May 2002 21:12:46 +0200, "Schainbaum, Robert"
> <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:
> >Biology?
>
> Your point has some validity, but I would note, a brief check of one
> course catalogue indicated that coursework in calculus, statistics,
> and physics are required for the major. Same sort of thing with
> geology, another traditionally non-quantitative science that is headed
> more and more towards math.
That's in line with a general tendency to extract maximum certainty from
uncertainty.
Dr Robin Bignall
<bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Richard Ashton wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 26 May 2002 15:15:13 +0100, david56 <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> }"Schainbaum, Robert" wrote:
>> }>
>> }> PhD is a catchall advanced degree for students in English as well as
>> }> Physics. Is physics a philosophical discipline? Not unless you reads
>> }> lots of SciFi.
>> }>
>> }> Please, I will neither read nor respond to hate posts from mindless
>> }> SciFi fans.
>> }
>> }Will you consider moderate comments from intelligent SF readers?
>>
>> Intelligent SF Readers is an oxymoron
>
>Ooooh. I've never been called an oxymoron before. Ordinary moron,
>certainly.
He's beefing up his prefix.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
Mason Barge
>What is the english word for a scientist who studies ethics ?
>Would that be an ethic ? and the female form would be ......?
>My webster does not mention it, neither do the dictionaries on the net....
>
>thank you
>Erik
I suppose I might as well pitch in with a well-defined area of
professional ethics, i.e. legal ethics. Legal ethics (in the US) has
become, in effect, a body of laws. There are three parts. First, the
code states general principles, such as "an attorney has a duty to
represent his client zealously". Next it states specific rules based
on the general principle, such as "an attorney may not represent a
client whose interests conflict with the interests of another client".
There is then a "gloss" of each rule, which may be lengthy and which
gives examples of conduct that would violate the rule or conduct that
would not violate it.
Finally, there is a section on discipline and procedure.
This is clearly a highly-evolved professional ethics framework in a
narrow field of application. The penalties involve only jeopardy to
the offender's professional life -- either damage to professional
reputation by public remand, or loss of a license to practice.
Perhaps because this area is one I am exposed to so often, I
distinguish ethics from morality quite clearly, whereas in other areas
the terms seem to cause confusion.
First, ethics are more widely accepted. Attorney A may represent an
abortion clinic, and Attorney B may represent an anti-abortion group.
Neither attorney has done anything unethical, per se, but you could
find a significant number of reasonable people who would consider one
or the other of them to be doing something immoral.
Second, ethics tend to be more enforceable, even if by informal loss
of reputation. Let's use a really hot strip club which operates
inside the law at all times. The owners don't give a hoot whether
some of the citizenry think that the club is immoral. But if word
gets out that they are acting unethically -- gouging customers, not
paying suppliers on time, exploiting dancers, etc. -- it will hurt
their business.
Another example of business ethics. My sister represented a client
(she was a consultant) who simply would not pay her. She sued him in
small claims court and won. He still would not pay her. She actually
had to execute the judgment and attach his bank account. She had the
opinion that this person simply didn't pay bills and had a standard
operating procedure of forcing small or occasional merchants to sue
him.
I realize that some (especially corporations), when they speak of
ethics, have in mind what I would call "morals" to some degree. Say,
for example, using sweatshop labor in a third-world country. People
disagree radically over the morality of doing it. There seems to be a
growing consensus, however, that there is some "ethical" standard in
doing so, which is that the company has some limited responsibility to
ensure that the third-world workers enjoy certain stark minimum
standards of humane treatment: No child labor under a certain age,
for instance, no severely hazardous work conditions if they can be
prevented at reasonable cost, no corporal punishment for infractions
of work rules, and so on.
The punishment is a loss of income by publicity and boycott.
et
et
sciences/math etc. at the same time ? more so than these days ?
I would think they were not the specialists we see today...
Nice mix: natural science (chemistry, physics etc) and philosophy..
Erik
et
Maybe you will want to have a look at my site: www.terwiel.com. There are
several pages there with things I wonder about.
I was never taught any professional ethics in my school years, some 20 years
ago. Just mechanical engineering.
I惴 getting interested in it these days.
I find a lot of common things in philosophy and the natural sciences: Both
do experiments (mind- or otherwise), both try to get to the ontology of
things, both try to get to the fundamental question/answer combination. Many
aspects of philosophy are very real too.
Both are very useful, generally.
So, if it愀 big, green and has a lot of teeth, let us cal it a crock , ok ?
:-)
this thread has been long and winding....
thnx again
Erik
jan_...@hotmail.com
<'{R}'@semolina.org> wrote:
>
>Intelligent SF Readers is an oxymoron
>
>{R}
Let's see now. Arthur Clarke, Robert Forward, Isaac Asimov,
H.G.Wells, Greg Bear, Ursula Le Guin,...all idiots?
Jan Sand
david56
> is certain Manchurians are mad, it could be any old shit place.
What have you got against the north-eastern Chinese?
david56
> I was never taught any professional ethics in my school years, some 20 years
> ago. Just mechanical engineering.
That's one of the most profound paragraphs I've read on Usenet in many a
week.
Mark Wallace
> et wrote:
>
>> I was never taught any professional ethics in my school years,
>> some 20 years ago. Just mechanical engineering.
>
> That's one of the most profound paragraphs I've read on Usenet in
> many a week.
I thought professional ethics was only excluded from law courses.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Old Spice -- The Stupidest Story Ever Written
(and the second-best selling e-book in history)
The first volume is now FREE!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/os/freebie.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Molly
m>, (jan_...@hotmail.com) wrote
>>Intelligent SF Readers is an oxymoron
>Let's see now. Arthur Clarke, Robert Forward, Isaac Asimov,
>H.G.Wells, Greg Bear, Ursula Le Guin,...all idiots?
No, no - those are (or were) intelligent SF *writers*.
david56
>
> Data centers 2 of them International PLC/ Bank underneath the flight path of
> the airport, clever that.
Not a Manchester idea - there are many data centres under the flight
path at Heathrow.
>
> Plus it always rains in Wythenshaw(sp)
We arrange this for days when Southerners visit - it ensures that they
don't hang around.
david56
>
> On Mon, 27 May 2002, in article <3cf274b0....@east.usenetserver.co
> m>, (jan_...@hotmail.com) wrote
> >On Sun, 26 May 2002 22:13:47 +0100, Richard Ashton
> ><'{R}'@semolina.org> wrote:
>
> >>Intelligent SF Readers is an oxymoron
>
> >Let's see now. Arthur Clarke, Robert Forward, Isaac Asimov,
> >H.G.Wells, Greg Bear, Ursula Le Guin,...all idiots?
>
> No, no - those are (or were) intelligent SF *writers*.
I wondered about this, but I think it's reasonable to suppose that
Clarke (e.g.) has read the books of many of his contemporaries. Is he
intelligent when writing and stupid when reading?
jan_...@hotmail.com
<'{R}'@semolina.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 May 2002 18:04:53 GMT, jan_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>}On Sun, 26 May 2002 22:13:47 +0100, Richard Ashton
>}<'{R}'@semolina.org> wrote:
>}
>}>Intelligent SF Readers is an oxymoron
>}
>}Let's see now. Arthur Clarke, Robert Forward, Isaac Asimov,
>}H.G.Wells, Greg Bear, Ursula Le Guin,...all idiots?
>
>Well I only know two, and yes. However I see you have difficulty reading a
>notable trait in SF fans.
Admittedly there are people who read SF and lack critical capability,
but the distribution of these types seems to me universal and not
confined to a special division of literature.
Jan Sand
jan_...@hotmail.com
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
>I thought professional ethics was only excluded from law courses.
From the look of things it would seem to me that business courses have
the same problems.
Jan Sand
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>The British have done well to hold out against degree inflation.
>Even with the foolishness that exists in the UK, I don't think you
>have our infestation of utterly brain-dead people calling themselves
>"Doctor". I'm not talking about people whose ideas I disagree with;
>I'm talking about people whose educational attainment is short of what
>I thought was required for graduation from high school.
>
>Not surprisingly, the very worst of the lot are in the field of
>"education", i.e. methods of teaching schoolchildren to age 18.
That seems to be universal.
Pedagogicians (they can't bear to be called educationists) are scientists, and
their science consists of making up convoluted phrases to describe everyday
phenomena, and getting students to memorise lists of these.
For example, "history of adult education" is far too unscientific; it has to
be known as "temporal andragogics".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mark Wallace
Oh, I think it's in there. It's called "Ethics is for Wimps 101",
IIRC.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
Little girl lost?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/mother.htm
____________________________
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
jan_...@hotmail.com writes:
> (Is a webster someone who surfs the web?)
Noah (to be pronounced with James Stewartesque drawl:-)
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of
distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr-
easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
Phil C.
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3cf303e8...@news.saix.net...
> Pedagogicians (they can't bear to be called educationists)
In the UK they'd be very wise not to be called pedagogicians lest they
be mistaken for paediatricians and attacked by an angry mob.
--
Phil C.
_______________________________
philandwoody"at"meem"dot"freeserve"dot"co"dot"uk
Mark Wallace
> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3cf303e8...@news.saix.net...
>
>> Pedagogicians (they can't bear to be called educationists)
>
> In the UK they'd be very wise not to be called pedagogicians lest
> they be mistaken for paediatricians and attacked by an angry mob.
Why on Earth should anyone attack a paediatrician?
It's the car repairmen who deserve to be hung; not the bicycle
repairmen.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
et
> >
Ortega y Gasset showed us the parallel between engineers and ethicists: both
are primarily focussed on the design and shaping of the future, in the light
of desirabilities.
Maybe we may add SF writers ?
in their own way of course. I am not an avid SF reader, but isn愒 there
often an engineering wish-list (desirability-list...) in some of those
stories ? Or an etics wish-list ?
Jules Vern --- going to the moon ..... I惴 sure some of the SF readers among
us can add a few examples...
Erik
et
practicing science would be generating knowledge. Very broad.
The problem with philosophy would be, that there are no tangilbe results, no
new medicine, or rockets etc. But you cannot say that Plato or Kant did not
gennerate or knowledge i悲 say. Maybe they were wrong in some respects, but
so were many scientists....
Erik
et
et
Mark Wallace
Mark Wallace wrote:
>> Ye gods, not another one!
>> Welcome to alt.english.usage.in.nl
>
> Please explain ????
Oh, only that about seven-thirds[1] of the posters here live in
Nederland (myself included).
Could you not snip quite so much of the postings you reply to? I
wasn't sure who you were asking to explain what.
[1] Approximate figures only. The value of postings may rise or
fall due to market forces, and your house may be at risk if you do
not lock the doors when you go out.
--
Begin PCP Signature...
ecallaW kraM
...End PCP Signature
_____________________________________________
What does a slightly insane Englishman think of the Dutch?
To find out, visit the Dutch & Such website:
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/dutch/dutch-index.htm
_____________________________________________
Mark Wallace
> In dutch it愀 called "wetenschap",
I know you're talking of the word 'science', but I don't know whom
you're replying to, or what he said. Don't snip so much (you may
have to set your newsreader to 'include message in reply').
There's not a lot of tangible output from Maths, either. Nor from
astronomy, or any of the theoretical sciences.
jan_...@hotmail.com
>> >Intelligent SF Readers is an oxymoron
>> >
>hm, seems too easy to me...
>Ortega y Gasset showed us the parallel between engineers and ethicists: both
>are primarily focussed on the design and shaping of the future, in the light
>of desirabilities.
>Maybe we may add SF writers ?
>in their own way of course. I am not an avid SF reader, but isn´t there
>often an engineering wish-list (desirability-list...) in some of those
>stories ? Or an etics wish-list ?
>Jules Vern --- going to the moon ..... I´m sure some of the SF readers among
>us can add a few examples...
If all science fiction were positive I could go along with that, but
even back as far as H.G.Wells' time machine, negative aspects arose.
Jan Sand
jan_...@hotmail.com
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
>
>There's not a lot of tangible output from Maths, either. Nor from
>astronomy, or any of the theoretical sciences.
>
Einstein found non-euclidian math quite useful and perhaps Newton's
invention of the calculus found some slight use here and there.
Jan Sand
>
Charles Riggs
Perhaps I'm thinking only of my case, but aren't the majority of avid
SF fans still in their teens? (You'll know, Jan.) If so, my guess is
they'd be among the brighter group of students, not the dumber.
Charles Riggs
Schainbaum, Robert
Obvious to anyone, you shouldn't postulate the 5th postulate.
Phil C.
"Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote in message
news:acvmns$t3k7h$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
> It's the car repairmen who deserve to be hung; not the bicycle
> repairmen.
Why? Wait till your car breaks down. A pederast won't be much use to you
then. You'll be glad of a qualified autoeroticist
Mark Wallace
> On Tue, 28 May 2002 12:45:31 +0200, "et" <e_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>>>> Intelligent SF Readers is an oxymoron
>>>>
>> hm, seems too easy to me...
>> Ortega y Gasset showed us the parallel between engineers and
>> ethicists: both are primarily focussed on the design and shaping
>> of the future, in the light of desirabilities.
>> Maybe we may add SF writers ?
>> in their own way of course. I am not an avid SF reader, but
>> list...) in some of those stories ? Or an etics wish-list ?
>> readers among us can add a few examples...
>
> If all science fiction were positive I could go along with that,
> but even back as far as H.G.Wells' time machine, negative aspects
> arose.
There's not much room for excitement if everyone's happy and
lovey-dovey.
Dave Fawthrop
Hash: SHA1
"Charles Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:7ds6fu4u1i9jm9prl...@4ax.com...
| Perhaps I'm thinking only of my case, but aren't the majority of avid
| SF fans still in their teens? (You'll know, Jan.) If so, my guess is
| they'd be among the brighter group of students, not the dumber.
When I was at Uni doing Computer Science one could ask absolutely anyone.
If the answer is 42 what is the question?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Life the Universe and Everything
Douglas Adams
- --
Dr Dave Fawthrop <da...@hyphenologist.co.uk>
Age 65 and reading Contact by Carl Sagan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPPOCuJ53Yvp2WrV4EQIBqQCg/GPzGyKbEhuGnjr3dvtC25ebmZkAoKPe
Lw6IhIfkR2oTFCr9xrR9Hb2e
=cY+5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sebastian Hew
>
> > Philosophy is typically taught in the Faculty of Arts in
English-language
> > universities.
"et" <e_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:acvo7p$4d0$1...@reader10.wxs.nl...
>
> In Holland art is not even taught at universities. Whole different
school...
Nonsense...
Leiden University has a Faculty of Arts
See http://www.international.syntonic.net/index.php3?id=121
As does the University of Amsterdam:
http://www.hum.uva.nl/
And the University of Groningen:
http://www.let.rug.nl/home.UK.html
And Utrecht University:
http://www.let.uu.nl/
Sebastian.
Pat Durkin
"Richard Ashton" <'{R}'@semolina.org> wrote in message
news:4dt6fuk4u60t7bpmk...@4ax.com...
>
> HEAD
Sorry. Is this a nautical flush?
OR... am I in over my depth?
Sebastian Hew
> In dutch it´s called "wetenschap", the part "weten" meaning "knowing", so
> practicing science would be generating knowledge. Very broad.
> The problem with philosophy would be, that there are no tangilbe results,
no
> new medicine, or rockets etc. But you cannot say that Plato or Kant did
not
> gennerate or knowledge i´d say. Maybe they were wrong in some respects,
but
> so were many scientists....
So is German 'Wissenschaft'. 'Science' too, is from Latin 'scientia',
meaning 'knowledge'.
Sebastian.
Mark Wallace
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> "Charles Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:7ds6fu4u1i9jm9prl...@4ax.com...
>
>> Perhaps I'm thinking only of my case, but aren't the majority of
>> avid SF fans still in their teens? (You'll know, Jan.) If so, my
>> guess is they'd be among the brighter group of students, not the
>> dumber.
>
> When I was at Uni doing Computer Science one could ask absolutely
> anyone.
>
> If the answer is 42 what is the question?
> .
> Douglas Adams
Unfortunately, that's not a question -- and it's cetainly not the
question from the radio show/book/TV show.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use
> <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBPPOCuJ53Yvp2WrV4EQIBqQCg/GPzGyKbEhuGnjr3dvtC25ebmZkAoKPe
> Lw6IhIfkR2oTFCr9xrR9Hb2e
> =cY+5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Can never be too safe, eh?
God forbid anyone should plagiarise your Usenet postings.
Mark Wallace
> "Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote in message
> news:acvmns$t3k7h$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
>> It's the car repairmen who deserve to be hung; not the bicycle
>> repairmen.
>
> Why? Wait till your car breaks down. A pederast won't be much use
I prefer more pedestrian pleasures. I don't need to heroically
search for the Holy Grails of life; I leave that to equestrians.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
You want nanomachines?
I'll give you bloody nanomachines!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/nmaj.htm
____________________________
Mark Wallace
QRT. The general schooling system in NL is different, as high
schools tend to specialise in subjects, but at University level,
it's more or less the same as in the UK.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
Wanna kill a Spice Girl?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/c-pages/sgdvd0.htm
____________________________________________
Mason Barge
>> >Intelligent SF Readers is an oxymoron
>> >
>hm, seems too easy to me...
>Ortega y Gasset showed us the parallel between engineers and ethicists: both
>are primarily focussed on the design and shaping of the future, in the light
>of desirabilities.
>Maybe we may add SF writers ?
>in their own way of course. I am not an avid SF reader, but isn´t there
>often an engineering wish-list (desirability-list...) in some of those
>stories ? Or an etics wish-list ?
>Jules Vern --- going to the moon ..... I´m sure some of the SF readers among
>us can add a few examples...
>
>Erik
>
As to the ethics wish-list:
More than that. Science fiction often includes extremely complex
systems of morals, ethics, and/or religion. Some make very powerful
but simple statements about morals in current society -- "Stranger in
a Strange Land" was a crossover science fiction hit in the 70's. On
the more complex front, one could count "1984", "Dune", or even "The
Time Machine".
The interplay of ethics with politics is certainly included sometimes;
once again "1984" is a good candidate, or even "Star Wars".
--
Mason Barge
"People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like."
-- Abraham Lincoln