Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2052 sci.philosophy.tech:691
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!mailrus!uwmcsd1!nic.MR.NET!umn-cs!ns!logajan
From: logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: How to dispose of naive science types (short)
Summary: A critical distinction.
Keywords: open your eyes next time you leave the lab
Message-ID: <531@ns.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jul 88 16:02:20 GMT
References: <483@cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk> <794@l.cc.purdue.edu> <488@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <1496@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN
Lines: 18

gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
> logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118) writes:
> >unproveable theories aren't very useful.

> most of your theories [...] will be unproven,
> and unproveable, if only for practical reasons.

Theories that are by their nature unproveable are completely different from
theories that are as of yet unproven.  Unproveable theories are rather
special in that they usually only occur to philosophers, and have little to
do with day to day life.  You went on and on about unproven theories but failed
to deal with the actual subject, namely unproveable theories.

Please explain to me how an unproveable theory (one that makes no unique
predictions) can be useful?

- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 -
- {...rutgers!dayton, ...amdahl!ems, ...uunet!rosevax} !umn-cs!ns!logajan    -