From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Wed Feb 26 12:54:17 EST 1992
Article 3989 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Determinism precludes truth?
Keywords: TRUTH truth
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.231447.1827@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 92 23:14:47 GMT
References: <1992Feb20.231024.5959@norton.com> <1992Feb21.092037.6074@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Feb23.223736.16566@ida.liu.se>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Lines: 61

In article <1992Feb23.223736.16566@ida.liu.se> c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge) writes:
>onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>
>[Omitted: Mr. Onstott's lengthy and somewhat incoherent irrationalist credo 
> defending religion and Milan Kundera(!), denouncing soullessness of science]
>
>You are of course entitled to your opinions; however, this group is rather
>more inclined toward rational discussion (with the occasional vehement
>insult). I prefer rationalism (the critical variety) as it attempts to
>resolve questions by discussion and criticism; religion and other 
>irrationalist pastimes have no other ultimate recourse than violence,
>as history shows. Have you read Popper?
>
 Yes, in fact, I have read a lot of Popper.  I find Kuhn to be much more
accurate and I have always thought that Phillips gave a good critique of Popper
in _Philosophy, Science and Social Inquiry_.  However, I am not interested in
discussing with you the nature of "disconfirmation" or "scientific paradigms"
but would rather talk to you about Popper's three worlds.

 Popper(as I am sure you are aware--but there are others reading this),
maintainted that there were three worlds:  1.) The world of things(material
world), 2.) the world of minds and their contents, 3.) the world of knowledge
and theories.  Instead of being a dualist, of which there actually appears
to be heavy undertones, he was a triist(wow!).  
 AI research is primarily interested in determining the nature of Popper's
World Two(henceforth, w1-world one, w2-world two, w3-world three, etc).  The 
problem, of course, of determining w2 is that all that scientists can really
do is relate w1 to w3 by using w2.  In this way, whenever outputs
forced from w1 emerge they can only be matched to w3 but in no way 
give us insight into the nature of w2.  To argue that it is possible,
under a Popperian view, would be to confuse, or conflate, w2 and w3, that
is to confuse conginitive structures with the disciplinary world.
This sort of reasoning can be arrived at from Phillips _Philosophy,
Science and Social Inquiry_ in a chapter titled "On describing a 
student's cognitive structure."  
  However, to say that all a scientist can do is relate w3 and w1 is
not altogether sound either.  So what I propose is that what the
scientist is, in effect, doing is creating another w2 by virtue of
w1 and w3 comparisons.  Whether or not that w2 is the same w2 as that
of a human can never be determined.  In this way, then, AI research,
at least from a Popperian view, is uninteresting.
  At this point, my friend, you either have to accept this conclusion
and remain strictly Popperian, or you must abandon Popperian thinking--in
part because disconfirmation rests on disconfirmation of w1 analysis with
w3 theory.  So the question is, if I had not read Popper, should I?

  
BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu



"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


