Message-Id: <199310200627.AA21184@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Wed, 20 Oct 1993 16:23:04 +1000
Reply-To: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: "philosophy" (was: toldi nunsenva)
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
In-Reply-To:  <199310191048.AA29421@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU> from "Logical Language               Group" at Oct 19, 93 06:43:56 am
Status: RO

To Logical Language Group respond I thus:

#I've run across this before, in another forum (can't remmeber which one)
#There are two definitions of science that I have seen used by intellectuals.
#The one used by scientists usually relies on concepts like the scientific
#method, description, experimentation, etc.  Another definition, used by
#"non-scientists", and especially those in the humanities and sometimes
#the social sciences, is harder to define, but ot seems to mean a large
#systematized body of knowledge or field of study.  i.e. it translates into
#what we might call an -ology.

As always, the sensible thing to do with a gismu definition is to go for
the broader one, which can be subsequently restricted by tanru, rather than
the narrower, which is much harder to expand in our literal-minded language.
Science science would then be "experimental science", which is not quite
nuncipra saske, but close to it.

"Kai` sa`n swqh~kan t'akriba` piota`,           N N O  nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au
 kai` sa`n plhsi'aze pia` [h [w'ra te'sseres,   I I L  IRC:nicxjo RL:shaddupnic
 sto`n e'rwta doqh~kan eutuxei~s."              C C A  University of Melbourne.
  K.P.Kaba'fhs, _Du'o Ne'oi, 23 E'ws 24 Etw~n_  K H S  *Ceci n'est pas un .sig*