From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!hanauma!francis Tue Nov 26 12:32:13 EST 1991
Article 1571 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:10610 sci.philosophy.tech:1104 comp.ai.philosophy:1571
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!hanauma!francis
>From: francis@hanauma.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Philosophical Foibles of John McCarthy
Message-ID: <1991Nov25.164015.13499@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 25 Nov 91 16:40:15 GMT
Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
Organization: Stanford University, Department of Geophysics
Lines: 27

John McCarthy writes:

	In a BBC debate with Professor Lighthill, I tried to make an 
	analogy saying, "Physicists haven't solved the problems of 
	turbulence in 100 years and aren't giving up".  

	I was flabbergasted by Lighthill's reply, "They should give up".  

	Unfortunately, the BBC didn't include this exchange, which served 
	to calibrate Sir James's attitude, in the tape they broadcast.

Well, it is England, isn't it? I hope that not for one moment did you
imagine you would be playing on a level field. Sir James belongs, and you
do not; it is as simple as that. I'd draw an analogy with a Punch & Judy
Show, but I'm not sure how high that would fly in this Yankee dominated
group.

But back to the point. What makes AI and Turbulence so interesting
for me, and, apparently, so dangerous to some others, is their shared
sense of misdirection. It is not the solutions that are troublesome but 
the feeling that the problems are improperly posed. Lighthill (I have
just stripped him of his Knighthood) in this exchange showed himself
to be no scientist and not much of a man.

						FM

francis@sep.stanford.edu


