[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Scientific Method
On 2/6/2014 11:57 AM, Michael Turniansky wrote:
I think the main objection to using saske at the root was because the
definition specifically doesn't limit it to capital S science (which, if
we could, doesn't even NEED the "tadji" part, because that is simply "te
saske"). saske is open-ended enough to include thinks like palm
reading, for example.
That objection would apply to the English word "science"
just as much as to the Lojban saske.
saske in effect means any body of facts which was systematically derived
(which probably does not include palm reading because there is no body
of facts, much less a consistent method). It does however allow for the
inclusion of mathematics as a science, even though math does not use the
scientific method. It also allows for the social sciences to use the
word, even though they are often defective in terms of the standard
scientific method.
It is not clear that modern science is well defined by any single
particular method. In particular, string theory is considered
scientific, but cannot be validated by the "scientific method". We
chose the definition that we made because we didn't want to presume some
particular concept of "scientific method" to apply to all of saske.
tersaske is indeed defined as a "scientific method", but is not
constrained to the particular method most commonly associated with that
English phrase. I would try ciplogji as a brivla for the latter.
lojbab
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.