Dear aruzinsky... Now you are proposing the aruzinsky classification of science. So a engineering is now more science than other sciences because it has more empirical validation... Branches of logic, set theory, computability, theoretical physics on the other hand are less science... now with a completely new aruzinsky model, we can rebuild the epistemology entirely, first by defining the degree of science... So... I assume by this logic that a wall designer constructor engineer is doing science constructing walls, because more empirical evidence for the walls cannot be given.
Regards; Fynn. -- "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day" "When I feed the poor, they call me a saint, but when I ask why the poor are hungry, they call me a communist." _ Dom Helder Camara 2010/11/29 aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com>: > Engineering is a sort of science, as a matter of degree, it is more > science than most "science" because it has more empirical validation. > > I assume that you have some familiarity with translation programs such > as http://translate.google.com/# . They are currently terrible, but > do you think that they will ever "amount to very much?" I think they > will provided either the linguists get their act together, or, the > more competent body of engineers, who design the software, do the > necessary linguistics research themselves (especially, as I described > about conditional probability). > > On Nov 28, 3:07 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> PS... Einseele... if he's still around, should get involved in this >> discussion....he likes Linguistics.. and math... and computer >> languages sorts of matters..... >> My own opinion is that Linguistics is a very Soft Science... that will >> never amount to very much... at best it can aspire to be to is to be >> "encyclopedic" and catalogue all "words" or other languages >> constructions... just as a sort of "zoological" excercise... and note >> what new "species or genera" are "born" and which old ones become >> extinct...... >> >> On Nov 28, 3:33 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > But, in Linguistics, empirical validation, including experimentation,> is >> > more easily done than in sociology or psychiatry/ >> >> > You think so?... clearly..... >> > Can you explain how easier and why?... I mean, apart from the >> > "seeming" false validation (experimental or otherwise provided by >> > such >> > things" (human constructs, really) such "grammar rules" accepted >> > definitions and the like.... language as a means of shared >> > communication requiring a basic imposed uniforminty for the sake of >> > mutual "human" understanding, sort of thing..... >> > As another consideration.... how do you account for other shared >> > imposed orderings... like Mathematics.... Musical notation..... >> > Computer languages....etc. Are they "Hard Science or Soft Science.... >> > Mathematics seems to be a confusing case... but only because it is >> > used to account for "Hard Science" sorts of "things"? >> > nominal9 >> >> > On Nov 27, 5:17 pm, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: >> >> > > But, in Linguistics, empirical validation, including experimentation, >> > > is more easily done than in sociology or psychiatry. >> >> > > On Nov 27, 11:20 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > > > Hard Science... Soft Science.... >> > > > Physics... Sociology >> > > > Biology... Psychology >> > > > anything... "Human"- or behavioral based (or other such areas... >> > > > pretty much Soft Science, I think......... >> > > > Cause and effect.... action and reaction >> > > > nominal9 >> >> > > > On Nov 24, 12:34 pm, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > Correction: >> >> > > > > Replace "experimentation" with "empirical validation." >> > > > > Experimentation is not always necessary for science (My bad.). >> >> > > > > On Nov 23, 4:40 pm, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > According tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics, linguistics >> > > > > > is >> > > > > > a science. According >> > > > > > tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Scientific_method, >> > > > > > science requires experimentation. For your entertainment, what's >> > > > > > wrong with these papers about bare plurals?: >> >> > > > > >http://people.umass.edu/partee/docs/Dependent_Plurals_Partee.pdfhttp:...... >> >> > > > > > The authors of these papers do not report any experimentation, >> > > > > > therefore, these studies are not science. >> >> > > > > > I found only one paper with an experiment: >> >> > > > > >http://mercury.hau.ac.kr/kggc/Publications/SIGG/SIGG12/SIGG12201_HKKa... >> >> > > > > > but it is flawed in some other ways.- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
