Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2047 sci.philosophy.tech:685
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert
From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: How to dispose of naive science types (short)
Keywords: open your eyes next time you leave the lab
Message-ID: <1496@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 18 Jul 88 10:43:22 GMT
References: <483@cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk> <794@l.cc.purdue.edu> <488@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <407@ns.ns.com> <442@ns.ns.com>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 26

In article <442@ns.ns.com> logajan@ns.ns.com (John Logajan x3118) writes:
>My point is that unproveable theories aren't very useful.

	a) most of your theories of interpersonal interaction, which
	   you use whenever you interact with someone, will be unproven,
	   and unproveable, if only for practical reasons.

	b) as a lapsed historian, may I recommend that you study the
	   history of ideas and religion.  You will find that scientific
	   theories, sanctified by science's notions of "proof" don't 
	   even account for 1% of the "theories" which have driven
	   historical changes.

I don't know what you mean by "useful", and suspect that you have not
spent too long worrying about it either.  I suggest you reflect over
your last few days and list the decisions you have made as a result of
scientific theory, and the decisions which you've had to make by magic
because the scientists have not sorted out all the world for you yet.  I
think most of your decisions will fall into the non-scientific,
unproveable category.  Now are the theories which are guiding you each
day really that useless?
-- 
Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science,  The University, Glasgow
	gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert

	     The proper object of the study of humanity is humans, not machines