Tag Archives: criteriological science

A New Kind of Science

Executive summary: There are sciences called descriptive, empirical, or natural; and there are sciences called prescriptive or normative. A third kind of science studies the criteria as such that a thinking being, such as one of us, imposes on itself as it tries to achieve success. Collingwood developed the concept and coined the term criteriological for such a science. Logic, ethics, aesthetics, and economics are Collingwood’s examples; I propose also linguistics as an example. Pirsig effectively works out rhetoric as an example. Getting these things straight may be of political use.


Some sciences are not recognized for what they are. The sciences themselves are not new, but a proper understanding of them may be new to some of us, including myself.

Here I supplement and update “Strunk and White,” a post in which I took issue with a professional linguist’s attacks on The Elements of Style. This book was William Strunk’s “little book” (53 pages), made slightly less little (71 pages) by E. B. White. In an essay called “50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice,” Geoffrey Pullum suggests that Strunk and White give a prescriptive account of English grammar, though they fail to understand it; in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (1842 pages), Pullum and Rodney Huddleston claim to present the same subject descriptively. Continue reading