Re: CFV: sci.philosophy.natural moderated

Will Wagers (wagers@computek.net)
27 Nov 1995 02:49:20 GMT

>|>> >Newsgroups line:
>|>> >sci.philosophy.natural Ancient natural philosophy.(Moderated)
>|>>
>|>> The proposed name for the group is misleading. The full line
>|>> quoted above indicates that the intended content is not
>|>> natural philosohy but history; and the charter makes that clear.
>|>> A better name could be sci.history.philosophy.natural or
>|>> sci.philosohy.natural.ancient -- there should be some indication
>|>> about the actual content.

Dear Contributors,

The point about the name of the group was discussed previously. Neither the charter nor the rationale for the newsgroup makes any me=
ntion of history.

There seem to be some people who feel that anything in the past is history (belongs in a history category). But, using this rule of =
thumb, archaeology, palaeontology, cosmology, etc. would belong under history as well. What distinguishes these areas from history i=
s science - the use of scientific methods to investigate past objects and events. The proposed newsgroup is dedicated to the use of =
scientific methods to properly interpret ancient science, especially as it affected ancient myth, philosophy, and theology. Thus, I =
feel it would be misleading to put it anywhere but under .sci. Even the history of science is normally documented and interpreted by=
scientists, rather than by historians per se.

Also, the group's purpose is multi-disicplinary. Contributions are sought from scientists in a large number of specialties, historia=
ns, linguists, philosophers, theologians, etc.

There has been some discussion of the RFD under news.groups, but a great deal of it was via e-mail, where a surprising number of peo=
ple who are interested in ancient natural philosophy do not have direct access to or do not frequent newsgroups. The majority of thi=
s correspondence was from scientists (e.g. the latest is a group of neurobiologists), not historians.

Besides, the time for such discussions is in the RFD stage. It seems a bit unrealistic to jump in at the last moment with a proposed=
name change. This proposal means something to a group of enthusiastic people who are anxious to use it. I hope that anyone making s=
uggestions is as interested in the subject as we are.

Sincerely,

Will wagers@computek.net