From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy!wagner Tue Nov 26 12:32:34 EST 1991
Article 1602 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:10668 sci.philosophy.tech:1125 comp.ai.philosophy:1602
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!ohstpy!wagner
>From: wagner@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Philosophical Foibles of John McCarthy
Message-ID: <11086.29313973@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 91 22:57:06 GMT
References: <1991Nov25.164015.13499@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Lines: 28

In article <1991Nov25.164015.13499@leland.Stanford.EDU>, francis@hanauma.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
> 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.
     [text cut]
> 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
Is there anyone specific whose work in turbulence you find 
particularly misdirected?  Is there any way to pose 
the problem that will save all the poor sots working on it?
Turbulence doesn't seem to carry much of the ideological baggage
attached to AI, and proponents of this or that approximation
scheme are rarely bothered by soi-disant philosophers about 
sinister implications. 
                                                -Luke


