From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!mcnc!ecsgate!lrc.edu!lehman_ds Tue Jan 28 12:17:00 EST 1992
Article 3093 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!gatech!mcnc!ecsgate!lrc.edu!lehman_ds
>From: lehman_ds@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Cargo Cult Science
Message-ID: <1992Jan23.112246.150@lrc.edu>
Date: 23 Jan 92 16:22:46 GMT
References: <92Jan15.175909est.14446@neat.cs.toronto.edu>  <1992Jan22.181811.23990@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC
Lines: 40

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. It is easy to
>>overlook these in a mature science in a normal phase, since they are
>>often taken to be so obvious that they are taken to be logical truths
>>(often by a variety of the imagination-failure argument). 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 or who cannot distinguish between their subjective 'truths' and the
> ones which can be shared with others, 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.
> 
>>Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
>>Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
>>5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andrzej Pindor
> University of Toronto
> Computing Services
> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
  Good point Chris, but I would be willing to accept some of these "truths"
as long as the don't contradict each other.  On of those "truths" is that
things don't dissapear as soon as I no longer see them.  The problem comes
from the inability to remain consistant with the very basic assumptions we
live with every day.
    Drew Lehman
    Lehman_ds@lrc.edu


