Quote Originally Posted by jkdesq
When science entered into the debate?
Quote Originally Posted by Dreadbelly
Language is Science
I believe when it was said language is a science. Language is a tool of science, used to test and retest hypostheses. [Linguistics is a science because it studies the acquistion and the construction of language.]

This would rather be like saying a shovel is science, because a shovel is used as a tool in archaeology (although not necessarily). The construction of something, such as a shovel, is definitely a science --it is engineering. Any process, such as kilt-making (i.e. contruction) is a science. Is language a process or the result of process? [To say language is a process therefore language is a science: this would be the basis of saying language is a science, Dreadbelly. First we need to prove language is a process, and that scope is too broad for this forum. I don't know, I am not a linguist.]

But based on soley what I know know, I will say that whether or not a kilt is a skirt would have to be determined by those who construct kilts, the scientists who actually go through that scientific process, the kiltmakers. They all have ideas, hypotheses about what a kilt should look like, from research (i.e., retesting hypotheses of others); and, they reconstuct kilts based on this that they learn from history. They test and retest to ensure their products are in-line with what the historical model tells them.

I just seems to me that this discussion is based solely on semantics. Nothing of value can be concluded in a discussion based on semantics, there are just too many defintions for too many words, and a false dilemma inevitably develops.

Again, the only people who could possibly resolve it are those who know firsthand about the scientific process of kiltmaking-- and that it the kiltmakers. We should appeal to the authority of these who know best. And until kiltmakers begin referring to themselves as skirt-makers, I am inclined to think that a kilt is a bloody kilt!