Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!ulowell!umassd.edu!rudolph
From: rudolph@cis.umassd.edu (Lee Rudolph)
Subject: Science, linguistics, and stamp-collecting
Message-ID: <CxKssy.Jss@umassd.edu>
Followup-To: sci.lang,sci.skeptic
Sender: usenet@umassd.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
References: <45a_9410101057@gastro.apana.org.au> <37bvao$g22@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>,<37fpp3$c9h@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> <37ggho$ghu@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 19:58:07 GMT
Lines: 23

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes in sci.skeptic:

>In article <37fpp3$c9h@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>, rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson) writes:
>=Or a great deal of modern theoretical physics, which emphasizes the
>=qualitative content of mathematical theories. I think Terry Smith is
>=suffering from a case of "Rutherford's syndrome": "all science is
>=either physics or stamp collecting." While Rutherford was one of the
>=greatest physicists of all time, he was also an arrogant ass. 
>
>I thought that statement had to do with Rutherford's perception that physics
>was the only science, at the time, which made predictions, and had little or
>nothing to do with whether the science in question was qualitative.  Consider,
>for example, the fairly recent history of comparative linguistics:  It was
>traditionally in the category of "stamp collecting:"  All the practitioners
>were doing was trying to find a way to classify observations.  Then a few
>decades ago, the practitioners started to develop the guts to make predictions,
>and the field has actually, since then, proven useful.

I'd be interested to see if any of the denizens of sci.lang have comments
in response to this last paragraph.  [Followups sent back to sci.skeptic
as well as to sci.lang.]

Lee Rudolph
