Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!botter!klipper!biep
From: biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Truth of theories (was: Re: Simplicity and truth)
Message-ID: <889@klipper.cs.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: klipper.889
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Sep-87 06:08:20 EDT
References: <20297@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <20304@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <3800@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <20371@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <3893@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Reply-To: biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux)
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 43
Keywords: truth Ockham's razor

In article <3893@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> myers@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Bob Myers) writes:
>I'm saying that a theory is not a set of statements, but a manner of
>looking at the world that allows one to *make* true statements.  It is a
>conceptual model.  Science is a human activity, done by humans to help them
>understand their environment -- which means to make conceptual models of
>their environment, which I call theories.  It is not done in the absence of
>an observer -- statements by themselves do not make a theory.  This is the
>objection I have to Biep's "mechanization" of science.

OK, that's a definitional matter, then. I take "theory" to be just a set of
statements, with nothing but operational semantics for the primitive terms.
(So electric current *is* what I, or the computer, measures.)
Of course no program makes sense (well, perhaps to itself?) unless there is
someone to say "These numbers are the salaries of the employees". But then
my postings don't make sense either unless there is someone who says what
all those little squiggles on your screen mean. I do believe I have some
sort of "intrinsic semantics", but I also believe others can't infer it
other than by just looking at my behaviour and my statements and trying to
guess. In other words: the computer will (may) not understand what it does,
but we may be unable to tell whether it does. And for my purpose (graduating),
that's (way more than) enough.

>I think it is safe to say that most of us have
>conceptions of acceleration and force, but mass is something we experience
>only through F=ma.

Funny. For my feeling "mass" just *is* matter, and so very concrete to me
(My physics teacher didn't like me equating the two..), whereas "force" is
a much more esoteric notion for me. (I know what getting hit by a stone is,
however.. :-))

>Have I clarified my position any?

More or less, yes. Let me wait till you have answered Paul Kube's questions.


BTW, as the new schol year has begun, people expect me to do funny things
which lots of students in a big room, so I suppose I'll slow down my
usenet pace somewhat. Things will come, however (DV), it may only take
more time. Please bear.
-- 
						Biep.  (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax)
			My F-key has autorepeat