|
-------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...
--
. | 