Addenda: And there is a big overlap between electrical engineers and computer scientists in publication and practice. In some universities, the two departments have merged.
On Nov 30, 9:44 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > Dear Enrique Fynn, > > Exactly, except I am talking about engineers who publish papers in > peer reviewed engineering journals versus "scientists" who publish > papers in peer reviewed science journals. Otherwise, we should > include witchdoctors as scientists when comparing with your suggested > "wall designer constructor engineers". > > Who do you think designed the electronic device that you are currently > looking at, you big ingrate? Name one good thing in my life for which > linguists are responsible. > > On Nov 29, 1:51 pm, Enrique Fynn <enriquef...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > ashttp://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 > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.-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.
