01-03-2003 08:41									#391
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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/...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.

	01-03-2003 08:41									#392
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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

	01-03-2003 08:42									#393
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Do philosophers always mix up terms? http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/PH...306/690306.html quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 08:42									#394
	Put an end to popups!

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...

	01-03-2003 08:43									#395
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 08:43									#396
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 08:45									#397
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	01-03-2003 08:46									#398
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: 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?

	01-03-2003 08:47									#399
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 08:48									#400
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 08:49									#401
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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

	01-03-2003 08:50									#402
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 08:51									#403
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 08:52									#404
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 08:53									#405
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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.

	01-03-2003 08:54									#406
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Yeah, big sample.

I'm beginning to suspect that philosophers are lacking in humour. At least, that's what my sample of 1 is telling me.

	01-03-2003 08:56									#407
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Frogger 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.

"And you'd get nowhere" - another unargued assumption. This is the problem with science students, when you ask them simple questions they respond with dogmatic bull**** like that.

I'd like to know if there are good reasons to think scientific theories are realist or anti-realist in nature. I'm certainly not going to accept mere assertion one way or another.

	01-03-2003 08:58									#408
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I still haven't seen anyone give a reason to reject my claim about philosophy and cognitive science and philosophy and AI. Or the historical value of studying philosophy, or it's value in creating new political ideologies, or it's use in ethical reasoning.

	01-03-2003 09:02									#409
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: "And you'd get nowhere" - another unargued assumption. This is the problem with science students, when you ask them simple questions they respond with dogmatic bull**** like that. I'd like to know if there are good reasons to think scientific theories are realist or anti-realist in nature. I'm certainly not going to accept mere assertion one way or another.

It's not dogmatic bullshit if I came up with it on my own. It's personal bullshit at that point.

Agathon, give me a definition of "reality", then explain to me how you will measure the deviance of a theory from reality.

Nobody's even gotten their act together enough to do that compellingly. Until then, all Popper (I think he's the famous realist, right?), his friends and his foes can do is spin crap until the issue is so confused that the weak-minded have a hard time following the arguments.

	01-03-2003 09:03									#410
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Then if you believe this I don't see how you have any rational grounds for any of your scientific beliefs - so next time we find you having a go at someone over theirs you will be damned a sophist or a hypocrite.

How does that work.
I don't pretend to be able to predict the future, so how am I a hypocrite in any way if I admit future predictions rely on faith? Isn't that a rather obvious thing, anyway?

quote: After all no one thought that anyone would solve the problem of Fermat's last theorem, but it happened. Merely saying, "That can't be solved, so who cares." is a betrayal of the values that are fundamental to any academic discipline and represent the worst form of intellectual laziness or cowardice.

Do you realize you're rambling about something completely unrelated to this discussion?

quote: What's really at issue here is that you don't understand what philosophers do - witness the growing number of howlers you have committed in this thread.

What's really at issue here is your complete inability to explain what philosophers do, particularly because they don't do much these days.

Everything you've quoted about what philosophers do counts as a "howler" (you totally abuse that term, by the way).

quote: In fact, "that's just some bull**** that philosophers talk about", strikes me as one of the worst reasons ever offered in refutation by anyone. Most of your answers are mere variations on this tedious theme.

And all of your answers revolve around a theme where you spew bullshit with fancy words, asking questions and pretending to be profound.

Philosopher.

	01-03-2003 09:04									#411
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

You folks haven't gotten any farther than Plato's ideal forms did. That might tell you something...

	01-03-2003 09:06									#412
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Peter Triggs C'mon, Asher, a cursory glance through the American Association for Artificial Intelligence popped up:

A guy who taught philosophy in the late 60s/early 70s and switched to CompSci and Psychology proves what, exactly?

	01-03-2003 09:08									#413
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Frogger his friends and his foes can do is spin crap until the issue is so confused that the weak-minded have a hard time following the arguments.

Hey, don't bring me back into this....



ACK!

	01-03-2003 09:11									#414
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by 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/...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.

Interesting, so AI "needs" philosophers to determine how it views the world, a "world philosophy" of sorts.

That's a very narrow requirement for AI, and I'd venture that 99% of the AI out there today doesn't even have a "world view".

But hey, there's your proof for why we need to find a philosophy department: No one else can decide how a robot should view the world

(Of course my favorite part of that guy's webpage is where he mentions that the philosophical method is often not helpful)

	01-03-2003 09:14									#415
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Frogger quote: "And you'd get nowhere" - another unargued assumption. This is the problem with science students, when you ask them simple questions they respond with dogmatic bull**** like that. I'd like to know if there are good reasons to think scientific theories are realist or anti-realist in nature. I'm certainly not going to accept mere assertion one way or another. It's not dogmatic bullshit if I came up with it on my own. It's personal bullshit at that point.

quote: Agathon, give me a definition of "reality", then explain to me how you will measure the deviance of a theory from reality. Nobody's even gotten their act together enough to do that compellingly. Until then, all Popper (I think he's the famous realist, right?), his friends and his foes can do is spin crap until the issue is so confused that the weak-minded have a hard time following the arguments.

Popper is history. I don't have much trouble following philosophical arguments, although I am happy to admit that phil science is not my area of expertise.

Anyway, standard definitions of realism. Usually either (a) the statements of scientific theory are about events or entities that are completely mind independent; or, (b) scientific statements are subject to the classical (bivalent) notion of truth rather than some form of warranted assertion.

As for someone who mentioned the theory of Forms - there are many mathematicians around who (to my horror) regard themselves as platonists.

	01-03-2003 09:18									#416
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Asher Interesting, so AI "needs" philosophers to determine how it views the world, a "world philosophy" of sorts. That's a very narrow requirement for AI, and I'd venture that 99% of the AI out there today doesn't even have a "world view".

Those I found without much searching. The point of posting the articles was to dispute your claim that philosophy has nothing to do with AI. Despite what you say, there are plenty of people working in both fields, whatever the quality of their opinions.

I'd be willing to say that AI probably doesn't need philosophy to any great extent in the way that you think of it, but that doesn't mean that philosophers aren't interested in it, or that the results of AI research are not relevant to other fields.

	01-03-2003 09:19									#417
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: (a) the statements of scientific theory are about events or entities that are completely mind independent; or, (b) scientific statements are subject to the classical (bivalent) notion of truth rather than some form of warranted assertion

In other words, does reality exist or not. If I see something how can I be sure it's really there?

Answer's simple: you can't. You can't transcend your senses, or be "sure" of anything. If you want to get somewhere, accept it and move on.

	01-03-2003 09:20									#418
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Those I found without much searching. The point of posting the articles was to dispute your claim that philosophy has nothing to do with AI. Despite what you say, there are plenty of people working in both fields, whatever the quality of their opinions. I'd be willing to say that AI probably doesn't need philosophy to any great extent in the way that you think of it, but that doesn't mean that philosophers aren't interested in it, or that the results of AI research are not relevant to other fields.

It is the kind of link I was looking for though.

But of course it's possible to make philosophy have to do with everything. It's one of those fields with no real boundaries, which is why it's considered useless by many and incredibly useful by others.

It depends on how realistic you are.

	01-03-2003 09:26									#419
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Arguing about whether or not reality exists is like arguing about whether or not God exists, or similar nonsense.

Has anybody actually ever actually progressed in these studies or is it simply a matter of belief?

	01-03-2003 09:28									#420
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Frogger You folks haven't gotten any farther than Plato's ideal forms did. That might tell you something...

You know, some knowledge of Hume and/or Kant would be sufficient to dispel this belief. And they were writing a long time ago.

Again - let me repeat - the notion that philosophical method can yield metaphysical truths is old hat to those like me, who were educated in the analytic tradition (what those French twits say is completely different and we are in no way responsible for their drivel). That is an old view, kept alive by historians of philosophy (like me) for historical interest and some perspective. 20th century analytical philosophy spent much of its time in conceptual analysis and investigations of language where the idea was to determine a "logical grammar" for the correct use of expressions so as to avoid postulating absurd metaphysical theses.

I tend to be in agreement with this line of thinking, but it doesn't mean that I think that theories of reference or meaning or any other kind of conceptual clarifications have no point - again witness the kerfuffle over "causality'.