Re: compound propositions

From: Reinier Post <rp_at_raampje.lan>
Date: 19 Mar 2010 22:31:35 GMT
Message-ID: <4ba3fb47$0$14128$703f8584_at_textnews.kpn.nl>


Cimode wrote:

>Snipped
>> D&D aren't exactly the focal point of database theory either.
>Speaking of terminology, can you remind me again what or whom exactly
>is the/a *focal point* of database theory? And by whose logic does one
>assign a spatial/relative location to a scientist into a scientific
>universe of discourse ?

We don't. By the way, in my terminology, Date and Darwin aren't scientists, and mathematics is not a science. Your terminology may vary.

I was just trying to make the point that how we define things doesn't necessarily coincide with how we name them. Of course it's very helpful to have consistent terminology.

>A question always comes back to my mind: Why do we always have to
>resort to mystical terminology when dealing with science ? Is this a
>curse ? Is database theory doomed to remain in utter infancy. Can't
>we just turn alchemy into chemistry once and for all.

There is no question of alchemy. I like Date's writings as explanations of the relationship between database theory and practice and why theory matters. But theory they are not, and I'm sure Date would agree.

-- 
Reinier
Received on Fri Mar 19 2010 - 23:31:35 CET

Original text of this message