XPost: alt.usage.english
From: ed@somewhere.in.the.uk
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 19:03:56 +0000, Ed Cryer
> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 21:06:50 +0000, Ed Cryer
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Remember that philosophy is not science. Those two disciplines use
>>>> different methods of attack?
>>>
>>> But what in English is now called "science" was once known as "natural
>>> philosophy",
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Quite so, but today they are separate; to the extent that "the
>> philosophy of science" is a big subject.
>
> Yes, but other languages do not make such a distinction, and this
> causes problems in translation.
>
> People who speak English as a second language often speak of
> "scientific papers" where native speakers would say "ascademic" pr
> "scholarly" papers. German has "wissenschaft" and Russian has "nauka"
> where English has several different words with different connotations.
>
> So the distinction between philosophy and science appears much more
> rigid to English speakers than it does to speakers of other languages,
> and can sometimes lead to misunderstandings. On the other hand, it can
> also lead to pseudo-academic bullshit masquerading as "science" (in
> the English sense).
>
>
I suppose one would have to define both concepts in great detail in such
other cultures.
I wonder, however, if it would be worthwhile, because the distinction
would sound to them rather otiose.
I think you're quite right. Even in English-speaking countries the
majority of people probably don't get it. It's a philosophers' game; a
way of outlawing astrology or psychoanalysis from things like physics
and chemistry.
Ed
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
