<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
> <br>> > Linguistics IS SCIENCE OR ART, because Linguistics IS SCIENCE AND ART.<br>> And business, and.....<br><br><br>As any other SCIENCE and/or ART :)<br><br><br>> <br>> Rainer<br>> <br>> <br>> On 24 March 2010 09:19, Gilles Serasset <Gilles.Serasset@imag.fr> wrote:<br>> > Dear all,<br>> ><br>> > What I meant in my earlier answer is that the classical question "SCIENCE OR<br>> > ART" is most of the time asked only for political reasons and that it is<br>> > indeed non relevant in general.<br>> ><br>> > Physics, for instance, is always mentionned as the example of what one may<br>> > call REAL science.<br>> ><br>> > And it is indeed science when one systematically uses a theory to predict<br>> > some behaviours that are to be validated by observation. This aspect has<br>> > been clearly stated by P. Fung.<br>> ><br>> > But what about the way a theory is conceived ? Do you really think that the<br>> > theory of relativity was the result of a "systematic pursuit of knowledge" ?<br>> > I do believe that most of this work relies on the pursuit of an "aesthetic"<br>> > result that would reconcile the theory and the "annoying facts".<br>> ><br>> > In this regard, there is ART and SCIENCE in physics.<br>> ><br>> > The same kind of observation holds even in mathematics when the hypotheses<br>> > (a "beautifully" reduced set of assumption) that are admitted by a community<br>> > are destroyed by the discovery of a new paradox. The hypothesis are a<br>> > product of ART, there failure is a product of SCIENCE.<br>> ><br>> > And I do believe that there is no way it could be another way, because even<br>> > scientists are human and whichever definition you give to "humanity" it will<br>> > not only involve the concepts of 'rigor', 'honesty', 'systematicity', ...<br>> ><br>> > I think that whatever the way you do linguistics (by introspection or with a<br>> > computing device or whatever), the theories, rules and principle you "see"<br>> > in your work are the result of an artistic process. And there will be many<br>> > other linguists that will then argue on your production and try to<br>> > invalidate them systematically (and this is science).<br>> ><br>> > Hence an irrelevant (but logically deduced from the above unscientific<br>> > assumptions) answer to the original question:<br>> ><br>> > Linguistics IS SCIENCE OR ART, because Linguistics IS SCIENCE AND ART.<br>> ><br>> > Regards,<br>> ><br>> > Gilles,<br>> > --<br>> > Gilles Sérasset<br>> > GETALP-LIG BP 53 - F-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9<br>> > Phone: +33 4 76 51 43 80 Fax: +33 4 76 63 56 86<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > Corpora mailing list<br>> > Corpora@uib.no<br>> > http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora<br>> ><br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Corpora mailing list<br>> Corpora@uib.no<br>> http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora<br> <br /><hr />Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. <a href='http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2' target='_new'>Sign up now.</a></body>
</html>