S&S vs. SF in BotNS

António Pedro Marques · 22 Dec 2011, 21:50 · from 2011-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:50:47 +0000
Subject: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS
In-Reply-To: <F5434D5D72394508BC9F6E51884C8C3C@Rover>
References: <SNT123-W6264EC536A69C6A6153331CFAA0 at phx.gbl>
	<F5434D5D72394508BC9F6E51884C8C3C@Rover>
Message-ID: <4EF3A637.9030804 at gmail.com>

Gerry Quinn wrote (22-12-2011 21:30):
> There?s a difference between science and the study of Zeus and witches
> (...)

In abstract and technical terms, yes, but not really in the people who
combine these terms with many other things in order to do real life work. 
Motivations, approaches, imagination, prejudice, outlooks, may have been 
tentatively epistemised, but not commoditised.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net