Dear aruzinsky... So you are suggesting that Feynman and a lot of others theoretical physicists are not as scientist as engineers?
Let me point out that, if someone build a computer, that doesn't turn this someone in to a scientist, otherwise, some expert systems could be considered scientists as well, if some system design structures, such as a building or something, and I am a computer scientist, and I don't consider software engineering to be a science at all. 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 2010/11/30 nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com>: > aruzinsky.... > FYI , Einseele is fairly well educated when it comes to > linguistics..... you, on the other hand, do not appear to be all that > knowledgeble of linguistics , at all..... a little courtesy on your > part might be in order.... > On another front... statistics is usually a certain sign or indicatior > of a "Soft Science".... Most "hard empirical Sciences" strive to > obtain a single fixed result for any given experiment... I mean, > taking into account and accomodation for variables imposed by the > limitations of experimental instruments or by the limitations of the > "theoretical method".... > But, soft sciences depend on statistical ranges..... e.g. 25% of > respondents sustain this view....etc.... > > Finally, in reply to Mr. Creed.....Thanks for the memory jolt.....a > pleasant reminder of fonder, younger days.... > Songwriters: Glover, Roger;Blackmore, Ritchie;Gillan, Ian > http://www.lyricsg.com/25580/lyrics/deeppurple/knockingatyourbackdoor.html > Perfect Strangers (1984) > Sweet Lucy was a dancer > But none of us would chance her > Because she was a Samurai > She made electric shadows > Beyond our fingertips > And none of us could reach that high > She came on like a teaser > I had to touch and please her > Enjoy a little paradise > The log was in my pocket > When Lucy met the Rockett > And she never knew the reason why > > I can't deny it > With that smile on her face > It's not the kill > It's the thrill of the chase > > Feel it coming > It's knocking at the door > You know it's no good running > It's not against the law > The point of no return > And now you know the score > And now you're learning > What's knockin' at your back door > > Sweet Nancy was so fancy > To get into her pantry > Had to be the aristocracy > The members that she toyed with > At her city club > Were something in diplomacy > So we put her on the hit list > Of a common cunning linguist > A master of many tongues > And now she eases gently > From her Austin to her Bentley > Suddenly she feels so young > > Sweet Lucy was a dancer > But none of us would chance her > Because she was a Samurai > She made electric shadows > Beyond our fingertips > And none of us could reach that high > She came on like a teaser > I had to touch and please her > Enjoy a little paradise > The log was in my pocket > When Lucy met the Rockett > And she never knew the reason why > I can't deny it > With that smile on her face > It's not the kill > It's the thrill of the chase > Feel it coming > It's knocking at the door > You know it's no good running > It's not against the law > The point of no return > And now you know the score > And now you're learning > What's knockin' at your back door > Sweet Nancy was so fancy > To get into her pantry > Had to be the aristocracy > The members that she toyed with > At her city club > Were something in diplomacy > So we put her on the hit list > Of a common cunning linguist > A master of many tongues > And now she eases gently > From her Austin to her Bentley > Suddenly she feels so young > > > On Nov 30, 11:09 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: >> 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.-Hidequoted 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.
