[Corpora-List] Do you think LINGUISTICS is SCIENCE or ARTS?

[Rainer Ottmueller]

Seriously:

Science. But I do not feel newer mathematical theories sufficiently
accounted for. In particular, Robust statistics not. This certainly
holds true for other sciences as well. OTTH, I´m not amused to read
papers on First Order Logic, again. This does not hold true for
Biology, for instance. Even, only trivial applications of Graph theory
are considered. In this context, I´m looking for software supporting
Multidigraphs in Discourse analysis (for ESPs), but I fear to end up
with yet another UML-tool.

Rainer


On 24 March 2010 16:15, Anabela Barreiro <barreiro_anabela at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Linguistics IS SCIENCE OR ART, because Linguistics IS SCIENCE AND ART.
>> And business, and.....
>
>
> As any other SCIENCE and/or ART :)
>
>
>>
>> Rainer
>>
>>
>> On 24 March 2010 09:19, Gilles Serasset <Gilles.Serasset at imag.fr> wrote:
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > What I meant in my earlier answer is that the classical question
>> > "SCIENCE OR
>> > ART" is most of the time asked only for political reasons and that it is
>> > indeed non relevant in general.
>> >
>> > Physics, for instance, is always mentionned as the example of what one
>> > may
>> > call REAL science.
>> >
>> > And it is indeed science when one systematically uses a theory to
>> > predict
>> > some behaviours that are to be validated by observation. This aspect has
>> > been clearly stated by P. Fung.
>> >
>> > But what about the way a theory is conceived ? Do you really think that
>> > the
>> > theory of relativity was the result of a "systematic pursuit of
>> > knowledge" ?
>> > I do believe that most of this work relies on the pursuit of an
>> > "aesthetic"
>> > result that would reconcile the theory and the "annoying facts".
>> >
>> > In this regard, there is ART and SCIENCE in physics.
>> >
>> > The same kind of observation holds even in mathematics when the
>> > hypotheses
>> > (a "beautifully" reduced set of assumption) that are admitted by a
>> > community
>> > are destroyed by the discovery of a new paradox. The hypothesis are a
>> > product of ART, there failure is a product of SCIENCE.
>> >
>> > And I do believe that there is no way it could be another way, because
>> > even
>> > scientists are human and whichever definition you give to "humanity" it
>> > will
>> > not only involve the concepts of 'rigor', 'honesty', 'systematicity',
>> > ...
>> >
>> > I think that whatever the way you do linguistics (by introspection or
>> > with a
>> > computing device or whatever), the theories, rules and principle you
>> > "see"
>> > in your work are the result of an artistic process. And there will be
>> > many
>> > other linguists that will then argue on your production and try to
>> > invalidate them systematically (and this is science).
>> >
>> > Hence an irrelevant (but logically deduced from the above unscientific
>> > assumptions) answer to the original question:
>> >
>> > Linguistics IS SCIENCE OR ART, because Linguistics IS SCIENCE AND ART.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Gilles,
>> > --
>> > Gilles Sérasset
>> > GETALP-LIG                         BP 53 - F-38041 Grenoble Cedex 9
>> > Phone: +33 4 76 51 43 80                   Fax:   +33 4 76 63 56 86
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Corpora mailing list
>> > Corpora at uib.no
>> > http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Corpora mailing list
>> Corpora at uib.no
>> http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora
>
> ________________________________
> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your
> inbox. Sign up now.

_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora