Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc Subject: Re: Some thoughts on recent postings... Message-ID: <504@hplabsc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-Jul-86 01:58:33 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.504 Posted: Tue Jul 29 01:58:33 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 29-Jul-86 18:55:20 EDT Reply-To: hplabs!ames!aurora!eugene@hplabs.HP.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Lines: 30 Approved: taylor@hplabs Reference: <472@hplabsc.UUCP> This article is from Eugene miya and was received on Mon Jul 28 22:01:15 1986 Devil's Daniel Webster: Don't mistake the "unbiased" for "unbiased" estimators in statistics. Unbiased is at best a marginal adjective for statistics (similarly the concept of "Ideals" in number theory). I think that for most every computer expert (analysis), you could find a matching analysis. Only the simplest analysis could result in what you term a FACT. Those can be handled by legalese. What makes life tough are dilemmas, and dilemmas are what courts are about. I would like to think causality, logic, and "facts" would be enough to "solve" court cases, but computers are still little more than glorified calculators and sorting/searching machines for a court. Consider the proposal for a science court. Suppose you sent computers back during the age when funding for research on the properties of light (wave or particle). Science court convenes both sides give their evidence: computer models. Both have FACTS, both represent the truth. Humans deduce paradox/dualism. The problem is a bit harder for computers. I'm glad I would not be funded by the decisions of such a science court. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA