From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832
X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public
X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832
X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
From: The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Philosophers
Date: 1998/01/29
Message-ID: <34D120D3.6B18@erols.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 320425815
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
 <anonymous-1401980358130001@t9bsm0-03.tserv.umassd.edu>
 <gwinn-1901981219520001@dh5055142. <34C9F3D0.6B5A@erols.com>
 <6ao78n$52r@mrpibb.eng.umd.edu>
To: "Warren B. Focke" <moron@Glue.umd.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@erols.com
X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 886120714 21612 207.172.132.119 (30 Jan 1998
 00:38:34 GMT)
Organization: BudNy Organisation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: docdwarf@erols.com
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-01-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Warren B. Focke wrote:
> 
> The Goobers <docdwarf@erols.com> said:
> >
> >'Scientists'?  What are those... oh, wait a minute, I see... you mean
> >'natural philosophers'!
> >
> >(For the unaware... up until the late 18th century what we now call
> >'scientists' were called 'natural philosophers'.  For the aware... muse
> >over the difference between 'philos sophos' and 'scire')
> >
> 
> What most people call scientists, anyway.
> 
> I'll argue that a natural philosopher studies "nature", while a
> scientist seeks truth through the scientific method.

You realise, of course, this assumes both that there is 'truth' and that
said 'truth' can be found via the scientific method... since
reproducible results are the hallmark of scientific method this makes
'random truth' an imposibility.

(Not that this *means* anything, of course... but don't it sure sound
purty?)

> Orthogonal issues, really.

Oh, so you come here with... axes to grind?

>  Many scientists are natural philosophers.
>  Appallingly few natural philosophers are scientists.

I haven't met enough of either to be able to generate such a conclusion.

DD