Mentioning Phil phD's

[Agathon]

Or this guy has nothing to do with computer science.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/aiphil/aiphil.html

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/

And here's an introductory lecture on why Ai needs philosophy and philosophy needs AI

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs/misc/talks/ai-and-phil.pdf

Slide 7 is informative at a basic level.

Well I googled around for a bit to see how many good papers there were on the uselessness of the philosophy of science. Those I could find were either baby stuff or rants by religious cranks.

[GePap]

3 years? No kiding, since I went to a 4 year institution.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger


Do philosophers always mix up terms?

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PHILSCI/journal/issues/v69n3/690306/690306.html

Such a characterization is claimed to be too wide because given two structures of the same cardinality, there are always isomorphisms holding between them

Untrue. There is always a bijection holding between two structures of identical cardinality. This is the definition of cardinality, BTW.

Isomorphism is a much stronger concept, implying that the bijection you find preserves the relationships between the parts (i.e. in a group isomorphism it will preserve I(a+b) = I(a) + I(b)

There's always a few crap papers around, doesn't mean they all are.

[KrazyHorse]

You don't have the same education system Quebec does.

Up to Grade 11 is high school, then 2 years of "CEGEP" then 3 years of Uni...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon


There's always a few crap papers around, doesn't mean they all are.

That was the first one I opened, and the error was found in less than 30 seconds of reading.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


The advances of the modern age are due to the scientific method. Consequently, it works. Amazing how simple that was, yes?

Unless, of course, you want to postulate that your computer doesn't exist.

Well I am quite prepared to agree that there is practical justification for using it - theoretical justification is something else entirely. You may not be interested in this but plenty of people are.

[KrazyHorse]

There is no theoretical justification for the scientific method, or for the idea that the laws of science are constant throuh time and space. It's just easier to pick a basis and work from it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


Intriguing. So the answer to the question: 'What makes this statement different from "xxx"?' is "because you can't reasonably doubt it, that's how you can know you exist."

Well I thought the meanings of the statements were quite different, so it was rather a pointless question. Actually, looking at it, it is a completely pointless question.

Throw off the yoke of philosophy? What yoke?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger
There is no theoretical justification for the scientific method, or for the idea that the laws of science are constant throuh time and space. It's just easier to pick a basis and work from it.

That there is none does not mean that we might not discover one. You need an argument to show that such an enterprise could never succeed.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger


That was the first one I opened, and the error was found in less than 30 seconds of reading.

So what - that doesn't disprove my point.

[KrazyHorse]

No, but from my sample size of 2 it tells me that all works of scientific philosophy are either:

a) Irrelevant due to the fact that they are simple rehashes of well-understood theories or

b) Filled with errors

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon


That there is none does not mean that we might not discover one. You need an argument to show that such an enterprise could never succeed.

No I don't, because such an assertion is undoutedly as unprovable as its negation is.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger
No, but from my sample size of 2 it tells me that all works of scientific philosophy are either:

a) Irrelevant due to the fact that they are simple rehashes of well-understood theories or

b) Filled with errors

Yeah, big sample.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger


No I don't, because such an assertion is undoutedly as unprovable as its negation is.

Bull****. You still need a reason.

[KrazyHorse]

You could spend the next million years trying to "prove" that the scientific method leads us to "truth" or that current scientific thinking is closer to "reality" than older scientific thinking was, or that the Universe "obeys" physical "laws" in the way scientists assume it does, and you'd get nowhere. That's the problem with philosophy as applied to science.