🚀 go-pugleaf

> In article <850@klipper.cs.vu.nl> biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes:
>>
>>[Biep goes on at great length with specifics.]
> in article <91@thirdi.UUCP>, sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) says:
>> The methodologies of science, then, would consist of the means used in
>> discovering empirical truths.  The methodologies of philosophy would consist
>> of the means used to discover non-empirical truths. 

I think both sides need exploring.  All this started (I think) over the
question of the role philosophy in science.  [I don't like to dwell too much
on "methodology" - it too often has a "mechanistic" quality about it].  I
think Sarge has a good point.  But the development of methodology relies on
list of questions to focus on.

Two thoughts come to mind (I hope these are not _non sequitors_).  Thomas
Aquinas was master of a methodology call "disputatio" (sp?).  Latin was 
standardized to deny him that tool. [Food for thought]. That got me
interested in kindred concepts (methodology of discourse).  Hard to come up
with any real leads.  The counter example to methodology is in Barrett's book
_The Illusion of Technique_.

On Biep's side, knowing what questions to ask is critical.  In this age of the
quick fix, it is hard to pin folks down as to what the ultimate questions
really are. [This has been particularly annoying in my own discipline.]

Anyway, continue on, you two.
-- 
D. E. (call me Steve) Stevenson            steve@hubcap.clemson.edu
Department of Computer Science,            (803)656-5880.mabell
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906