XPost: alt.usage.english   
   From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Ed Cryer  wrote:   
      
   > 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 German has 'Naturwissenschaften' und Geisteswissenschaften'.   
   (and many specialised forms, like Erdwissenschaften)   
      
   > > 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).   
      
   Indeed, it is a bit surprising how gullible in particular Americans   
   can be in absorbing and expanding upon imported European nonsense.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Dutch for example divides the 'sciences' into   
   'alpha' for what you call the 'humanities', like history for example,   
   'beta' for what you call the hard sciences, like physics, and   
   'gamma' for the 'new' sciences, like sociology.   
   In the olden days physics could also be called   
   'proefondervindelijke wijsbegeerte', so so 'experimental philosophy'.   
   (following Simon Stevin, who coined many new words, some still in use)   
      
   > 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;   
      
   Yes, and no more than that.   
      
   > a way of outlawing astrology or psychoanalysis from things like physics   
   > and chemistry.   
      
   Freud-bashing is more of an Anglo-Saxon hobby   
   than a continental one,   
      
   Jan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)