From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!jeff Tue Jan 28 12:16:44 EST 1992
Article 3073 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Cargo Cult Science
Message-ID: <1992Jan23.205220.23402@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 23 Jan 92 20:52:20 GMT
References: <16814@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan22.181811.23990@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <16979@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Network News Administrator)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 52

In article <16979@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>In article <1992Jan22.181811.23990@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>|In article <16814@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>|>There is another aspect to this. There are philosophers of science (and
>|>scientists) who think that there is an important category of scientific
>|>assertions which do not constitute refutable hypotheses, but are
>|>assertions from which refutable hypotheses can be derived.
>
>|>They are very
>|>important, however, and easily disputable, in sciences in revolutionary
>|>or pre-paradigmatic phases. All-or-nothing refutationalists are apt to
>|>cause a great deal of confusion and distraction at these times by
>|>standing on the sidelines shouting for definitions, refutable
>|>hypotheses, accusing the players of non-science, metaphysics, etc..
>
>|You are right. However it also may happen (and does happen more often) that
>|a lot of people who are unable or unwilling to think in clear and precise
>|terms .... will be shouting: Hey, stop these
>|demands for definitions, refutable hypothesis, etc. You are only confusing us.
>|This is a revolutionary or pre-paradigmatic phase !
>
>|Perfect excuse for lousy thinking.
>
>Does this really happen more often? In this newsgroup? I've noticed a
>considerable and very tedious amount of what I complained about. I
>admit the possibility of what you complained about, but I can't recall
>any instances, though there might have been one or two.

I've said that the demands for definitions are a waste of time.
And they are.  We have to remember that this is a philosophy
group, not maths or physics.  And the demand to define is very
often used just as a way to shift the burden of proof, especially
since it's clear that some of the demands for definitions of,
say, "understanding", won't be satisfied by anything less than an
operational test.

What I find strange in all this is that anyone should find it
a mystery what "understand Chinese" means.  Can these people
really no distinguish between such things as reading a book
written in a language they know and reading one in a language
they don't?  Do they really think they can't answer this
question until someone tells them what "know" means?

Perhaps these people should start by giving a list of the words
they wouldn't demand definitions of.



If anyone thinks some important
words are ill-defined, they should go to the philosophical 
literature and see if they find that any better.  If not, perhaps
they just don't like philosophy


