Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.psychology,sci.physics,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.bio,rec.arts.books,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!argos.montclair.edu!hubey
From: hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey)
Subject: Re: Danah Zohar's pseudoscientific books
Message-ID: <hubey.786480095@pegasus.montclair.edu>
Sender: root@argos.montclair.edu (Operator)
Organization: SCInet @ Montclair State
References: <3b5hju$8lv@pobox.csc.fi> <Czzoyo.L07@unx.sas.com>   <3bdd8s$g8n@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <3be2as$fn4@uuneo.neosoft.com>   <vanjacD00Fsx.BL3@netcom.com> <3bf090$gil@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <D03qHK.7LJ@festival.ed.ac.uk> <hubey.786307449@pegasus.montclair.edu> <3blkk1$adt@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 18:41:35 GMT
Lines: 20
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97049 sci.psychology:30933 sci.physics:102298 sci.philosophy.meta:15287 sci.bio:23683 comp.ai.philosophy:23116

jerrybro@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Gerardo Browne) writes:

>I think an individual can often think that he has a proof of something,
>when others feel he has not yet proven it.  One defense is that they don't
>understand or that he hasn't worked out the details yet but is confident
>that he can do so in a straightforward manner.  Sometimes such an
>individual is wrong, but often he's right.  There's no way at that early
>stage to tell whether he's right or not.


Yes, that's understandable. I was referring to clear cut cases. For example
I don't there's anyone who's even read a little on AI who still thinks
that all that's necessary to produce definite proofs are already
known. If anything, we realize how little we know about things that
we talk about all the time-- like intelligence.

--
						-- Mark---
....we must realize that the infinite in the sense of an infinite totality, 
where we still find it used in deductive methods, is an illusion. Hilbert,1925
