From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria.organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Off topic: Crocodiles Date: 1997/06/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 247927705 Distribution: world References: <19970609.5A1DA0.14F78@an194.du.pipex.com> <199706111259.OAA29188@basement.replay.com> <339EA557.4D49@polaroid.com> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Mukesh said > > < "dismissed", it simply is not useful. It may or > not represent some kind of reality, but is not > concerned with measurable and observable reality.>> > > The notion of unobservable reality is not only irrlevant to science, but > often actively harmful. Scientists do better not to start believing in > any "reality" at all, but rather to concentrate on what is observable and > what is not. You have just crossed over into quicksand. First, "unobservable" is ill-defined. Second, even if you allow some notion of this based on some current set of capabilities, you have just pitched out the window all "hidden variable" theories as "unscientific". I don't think so. Third, if _all_ you are concerned with is "observation" (i.e., all knowledge is strictly empirically based) then you have to solve the problems presented by Hume (et.al, but Hume gives the most consistently relentless version). I suppose you could try saying that, "No, not all knowledge is empirically based, but all _scientific_ knowledge is". Perhaps, but that just side steps the issue. > to unscientific inflexibility :-) As I mentioned before Al Matson, the > physicist from UT, has explored this issue very effectively. Shrug. So have a host of others. For example, both Popper and Lakatos rather vehemently disagreed with this sort of position. It all goes back to Bohr, Complimentarity and the Copenhagen Interpretation for QM. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com