From: benlizro@ihug.co.nz   
      
   On 11/11/2024 11:08 p.m., Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:   
   > On 2024-11-11 09:43:56 +0000, Ross Clark said:   
   >   
   >> zzzzzz....Oh! UNESCO, 2002-   
   >>   
   >> "It might be thought that language isn't a relevant topic on this day..."   
   >> But Crystal has a few words to say about alternative terms for   
   >> linguistics (or some sub- or super-field thereof) which involve the   
   >> word "science": language science(s), linguistic science, speech   
   >> science, phonetic science   
   >>   
   >> OK, still boring. Let's move on.   
   >   
   > Best to omit the "science" from all of these.   
   >   
   > "Anything with 'science' in its name isn't a science." See   
   > https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/26/not-science/   
   >   
   > Think of Christian Science, social science, political science, etc.   
   >   
   ...not to mention Religious Science (est. 1922), and Dianetics: The   
   Modern Science of Mental Health (est.1950), forerunner of S****tology.   
      
   It is also true that in some academic realms, being a Science gets you a   
   higher level of funding than being an Art.   
      
   Just where the boundary of "science" is to be drawn is a topic I've long   
   since fulfilled my lifetime quota of arguing about.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)