Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm
From: mwm@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Mind and Brain and Ki - (nf)
Message-ID: <21000002@ea.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Aug-84 22:28:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ea.21000002
Posted: Tue Aug 14 22:28:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Aug-84 05:31:22 EDT
References: <107@mouton.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:mouton:-10700:ea:21000002:000:847
Nf-From: ea!mwm    Aug 14 21:28:00 1984

#R:mouton:-10700:ea:21000002:000:847
ea!mwm    Aug 14 21:28:00 1984

/***** ea:net.sci / imsvax!rcc /  6:45 am  Aug 11, 1984 */
Sigh.  Serves me right for being imprecise, I guess.  What I meant is that
if someone gives me a model to explain a phenomena and then offers no reasons
why his model is better or at least as good as the currently accepted model,
then I'm going to throw his model/theory out the window until he does give me
some reasons. 

		Ray Chen

UUCP:	{umcp-cs!eneevax || seismo!rlgvax!elsie}!imsvax!rcc
	
/* ---------- */

The only reasons I have ever run into for changing the model I use to
explain a phenomenon are that it is easier to calculate from, more accurate
(both is best), or neither harder nor less accurate, and intuitively more
appealing.

Of course, the only way reality enters into this is in the area of accuracy.
After all, reality is what you're trying to predict. :-)

	<mike