From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!infidel Sun Dec  1 13:06:11 EST 1991
Article 1704 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:10819 sci.philosophy.tech:1195 comp.ai.philosophy:1704
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!infidel
>From: infidel@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Philosophical Foibles of John McCarthy
Message-ID: <1991Nov28.035030.9746@uniwa.uwa.oz.au>
Date: 28 Nov 91 03:50:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: uniwa.1991Nov28.035030.9746
References: <1991Nov25.164015.13499@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@uniwa.uwa.oz.au (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Western Australia
Lines: 71
Nntp-Posting-Host: madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au

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".  
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I had a hunch before that Johnno McCarthy is an irrepressible knight of 
"very very difficult" causes.  Since the problem of turbulence contains
the problem of covering an arbitrary non-linear manifold with a single
chart (e.g. in cartesian co-ords, find a single chart for a circle)
which, in turn, seems to be closely related to the question of whether P=NP, 
there're good reasons to suppose that there're better ways of spending
one's research hours.  Personally, if I was heading off in search of the
Holy Grail, I'd hire camels and a guide and head to the region of 
Ancient Mesopotamia.

Since the fundamental difficulties with the various Holy Grail pursuits in
mathematical physics can be understood fairly quickly, the justification
for spending $x million and years of research on them lies in the
spinoffs - techniques  developed during the search that solve an easier
subproblem.  This is how the best research in "chaos theory" is justified - 
and it pays off: e.g. in the last year or so, Kruskal and others have found 
new integration techniques for difficult p.d.e's.


What are the successful spin-offs from Johnno McCarthy's brand of die-hard
adventurism ?


>	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.

Sounds like the kind of hurt schoolboy attitude typical of you Yanks.

Look at the facts, Jack.


>But back to the point. What makes AI and Turbulence so interesting
>for me, and, apparently, so dangerous to some others, 

Some do think it is "dangerous" - perhaps because they see funding going
to fuzzy, foolhardy popular-with-the-masses-and-ignorant-purse-string-pullers 
projects which could be better spent in developing integration techniques for 
difficult p.d.e's .



>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.

I have not heard the exchange; and I have not looked under his kilt.


>						FM


jw


