Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2072 sci.philosophy.tech:707
Path: utzoo!utgpu!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: <1532@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 27 Jul 88 09:09:44 GMT
References: <483@cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk> <794@l.cc.purdue.edu> <488@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <1496@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <531@ns.UUCP>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 19

In article <531@ns.UUCP> logajan@ns.UUCP (John Logajan x3118) writes:
>Please explain to me how an unproveable theory (one that makes no unique
>predictions) can be useful?
>
Because people use them.  Have a look at the social cognition
literature.

I understood your argument as saying that non-scientific theories
(a.k.a assumptions) cannot be useful, and conversely, that the only
useful theories are scientific ones.

If my understanding is correct, then this is very narrow minded and
smacks of epistemelogical bigotry which no-one can possibly match up
to in their day to day interactions.

Utility must not be confounded with one text-book epistemology.
-- 
Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science,  The University, Glasgow
	gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert