|
-------Original Message-------
Date: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:45:56 PM
Subject: Re: Training in the Middle and Far East
the clouds were dark and a lightining striked again...... obviously that was
when they parted. :)
Hello Brian,
To me Physics, mathematics and chemistry are capable enough to explain
certain things/phenomenons on their own. Or in other words one can not
explain/prove certain things in the absence of any or all of these
fundamental blocks of knowledge base. Hence they are true sciences. You can
extend the word to show/increase the importance/complexity of a work like
'language sciences', but that does not make language a science. I am not
going to dispute what a dictionary has to say about what is science or what
can be termed/defined as 'scientific'. English language in itself is very
new language and is still evolving, there are many situations and
expressions which can not be described using this language alone. (Hence
words were bought in from other languages). You can find several
articles(even in big publications) abusing such words which eventually
dilutes or distort their true meaning (say slangs) (perhapes to increase
the importance/complexity or sophistication of the subject they are talking
about).
I do not want to say that English language has defects or webester is wrong,
or anything of that sort, coz i think that is not where i want to go. To
me:-
To be classified/recognised as a science: A subject has to be pure and able
to stand on its own. be able to explain things based on its own principals
and fundamentals. be able to explore and unmask the unknown using its own
established set of solutions (say, a new theorm using/based on theorms
earlier defined/established, in case of mathematics).
Without the knowledge of mathematics and physics, one can not do anything
with computers (except writing letters in MS Word & making goofy powerpoint
slides). Mathematical science is employed in computer programming.
thanks,
Rajeev
__________________________________________________
There are as many paths as there are travellers...
>
>Hi again Rajeev-
>
>I think perhaps we have a basic disagreement on the definition of
>"science".
>I have quoted what I accept as a rigorous definition (with cites from a
>well
>known authority on the English language, Merriam-Webster). Regardless of
>whether you have corresponding citations, I would be interested to know
>what
>you consider "science" to be. Clearly, you rate mathematics, physics, and
>chemistry as sciences (I would agree). Examples aside, what is a good
>definition of science as far as you are concerned?
>
>Brian
>
>
> /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
> | Brian Gerard The moon is covered with the
>|
> | First initial + 'lists' results of astronomical odds.
>|
> | at technobrat dot com
>|
> \______________________________________________________________________/
>
>--
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Shopping upgraded for the holidays! Snappier product search...
--
. | 