Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Is Common Sense Explicit or Implicit?
Message-ID: <CwHFA0.L7x@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <CwFw8z.50H@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <35nhir$lro@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 13:39:35 GMT
Lines: 50

In article <35nhir$lro@newsbf01.news.aol.com>,
DrewDalupa <drewdalupa@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <CwFw8z.50H@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>, pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca
>(Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>
>>I do not understand your request - is the moon's rotation around the
>earth an
>>example of intelligent behavior?? In fact gravity explains this and does 
>>much more as well.
>
>An error caused the quote to be omitted.  You seemed to be demanding
>by analogy with electrons, that the entities one proposes to explain

It was not me who drew the analogy with electrons. I have pointed out that
electrons show up in a wide variety of observations and are not postulated 
to explain just one type of observations, which is the case for beliefs.
It is usually considered that electrons 'really' exist exactly because 
they are required to explain so many phenomena. Ether was postulated to
explain propagation of EM waves, but failed to show up in motion of bodies
through space (for instance) so it was abandoned.

>intelligent behavior also explain a wide variety of other things aside
>from intelligent behavior.  "Beliefs" do not do this, and I understood
>this to be your lates complaint with them.  But I think that your
>requirement is far too strict, and would block the way if inquiry.

Why? It is normal to postulate something to explain regularities of
behavior. However if this 'something' does not show up outside a realm in
which it was postulated, the case for the 'reality' of this 'something' is 
very weak.

>Besides, plenty of scientists use "belief" to explain intelligent
>behavior, so your notion that it would be unscientific to do so, if
>this is your notion, flies in the face of practice.
>
First of all, where did I say it would be 'unscientific'? Perhaps just
bad science (see for instance the case of 'cold fusion' - may be 
a scientific endevour, but most of it definitely a bad science).
Secondly, not everything scientists do deserves a term 'scientific'.

>epfaith
>
>


-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
