🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bxt9GA.Iyp@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

   In article <BEVAN.92Nov11113345@hippo.cs.man.ac.uk>, bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) writes:
   |> What are "etc." in this case?  I'm still waiting to see any mention of
   |> a "science" that isn't (IMHO) a "natural science".

   Well, there are some who consider the social sciences (anthropology,
   sociology, psychology) to be sciences.

But why?  What attributes do they possses that makes them a "science"
that computer science (sic) does not have?  (Maybe we need somebody
who considers them as a science to answer this question).

   [geology example deleted as IMHO it is a "natural" science]

   [description of routing problem deleted]

   Well, this is exactly the sort of thing I have been fishing for --
   but note how long it has taken someone to suggest such an example
   rather than purely formal/mathematical methodologies.

Maybe you missed my previous message; this is the second time I've
used this example in this context.

bevan