HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Philosophy before science ? (was : Seman
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:03:54 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <schiller.726394556@hpas5>, schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:
|> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> 
|> [ discussion deleted ]
|> 
|> >While in general I agree with your response to the simplistic and
|> >uncritical view expressed above, the view you express here is also
|> >a bit simplistic.  For example, 
|> 
|> [ ...]
|> 
|> >-- 
|> >Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
|> >SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
|> >sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
|> 
|> 
|> To dismiss an argument because it is "simplistic" is a 
|> typical example of, well, ... arrgogance ! 
|> A statement is either true or false, but "simplistic" is not
|> evidence for false. 

Speaking of arrogance, perhaps a bit more study should be devoted
to the meanings of the terms here.  Do please try to distinguish
between "simple" and "simplistic".  While a case can be made that
dismissing a position (not an *argument* mind you) because it is
*simple* is a bad move, dismissing a position because it is
*simplistic* if perfectly all right.  Just get out your Webster's
and check the meanings.  You will discover that "false simplicity"
(and hence "false") is part of the *meaning* of this term.  Thus,
while "simplistic" is not *evidence* for falsity, "false" is a
part of its very meaning.

|> If in physics one had always dismissed "simplistic" arguments,
|> one would have got nowhere. On the contrary, the textbooks are 
|> full of "simplistic" solutions to difficult problems.

By *definition*, a *simplistic* solution is not a solution (think
along the lines of "false friend").

I did, by the way, not merely *label* the position as simplistic,
but went on at some length to indicate its flaws (which in any
event are well known).



-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Schools, philosophy of science, epistemology
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:29:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <1993Jan10.113932.605@news.wesleyan.edu>
RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:

>In <C0M726.Jo7@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:

>> 	Most philosophy departments are worthless

>You display only your own dogmatism & ignorance in assertions like this.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If only that were true! But the British government agrees with him.

For all I know, he may indeed mean "profitless". If so, someone should
do a Plato on him, by sending him on his way with a well-earned nickel.

(The solitary inhabitant of my kill file may not be lonely for much longer.)
--
Gus Rodgers,  Dept. of Computer Science, | Cinema's worst romantic dialogue? --
Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End | "Mechagodzilla's brain is  installed
Road, London, England.   +44 71 975 5241 | in my stomach!" "I don't care if you
E-mail (JANET):   arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk | are a cyborg  --  I still love you!"
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Advanced degrees and non-academic work
Date: 11 Jan 1993 12:30:10 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu

-*----
Some companies view higher education quite favorably.  At SES,
our technical writer holds a Ph.D. in linguistics, and our
manager of client services is finishing (we hope) his Ph.D. in
philosophy.  I suspect that they are both paid more than is the
average junior faculty member in their fields.  In the hiring
process, we considered their education a positive aspect of their
background. 

The other hand, of course, is that they are not using much of what
they have learned.  But the about-to-be philosophy Ph.D. must see
some benefit to his studies outside of his career, because he has
advanced far enough professionally that this degree will make
little difference in that regard.

Russell
From: danco@titan.ucs.umass.edu (DANIEL F COHEN)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Which theory before observation ?
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:24:34 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucc.umass.edu

In article <schiller.726827765@hpas5> schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:
>
>Obviously I embrace the idea that no theory is necessary. (This is to
>make you angry a little more ... :-) The historical account even prooves
>this to be so.

Indeed, you embrace ideas as if they were low-rent prostitutes, uncritically,
without regard to their background or provenance, thinking as little as
possible so as to avoid the unwanted truth of the matter. 
>
[Ill-conceived gibbering deleted]
>
>I also subscribe to the idea that every theoretical term (such as
>'alpha particle', 'mass', 'charge', etc.) is simply *shorthand* for
>observations. This is the way physics and the other sciences have grown
>and have been developed. 

Have you even read any of the posts directed at you on this topic? Or, for
that matter ANYTHING relevant to this topic?  You began this converstaion
with a set of inconsistent and ill-defined ideas, and have responded to 
every comment on them with a reassertion of those ideas, held as if by
unreasoning religious faith: "It is my position that...", "I embrace the
theory that...", "I subscribe to the idea that..."

Please, embrace what or whomever you wish, but don't feel obligated to
garb your peculiar illusions in the trappings of a reasoned position.  It shows
more about your ability to reason than about the ill-considered attitudes to
which you cling.
-- 
===========================================================
Dan Cohen                         danco@philos.umass.edu
                                  danco@titan.ucc.umass.edu
===========================================================
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Philosophy before science ? (was : S
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:17:18 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

  
> However my son ! Facts are never presecribed by theory, facts are the   
> results of observation.  
  
However my Son !  
you can't go for observation to hunt facts without knowing what  
you are going to hunt...:-)  
  
> For example, electrons were there much before quantum mechanics  
> (at least 30 years before) when they were observed in Braun tubes  
> and similar devices. By the way, your TV and your terminal  
  
Whose electrons ?!  
  
> (except if LCD) is a Braun tube, and a  
> ray of electrons produces the image. No quantum mechanics is  
> necessary to observe this fact ... :-)  
  
WoW !  
So it is a fact that my CRT emits electrons, is that right ?  
but fact according to what theory ? How can I prove that  
my CRT emits electrons, according to what theory ?  
  
> Your (wrong) statement that "if we didn't invent QM then we wouldn't have   
> electrons" is a nice example which shows the difference between a  
> fact (based on observation) and a speculation "prescribed" by   
> what you (but not scientists) call a "theory", namely your   
> conviction that theories precede facts ... :-)  
  
It is not my conviction that theories precede facts, but   
it is the rule of the game that we choose to look for a fact  
according to a theory in our scientific activities ... just  
because we want to know what we are talking about and what  
we expect to observe and be in agreement in our language  
when we use it during and after and before we set up   
an experimentation again in accordance with the theory  
that we agreed on to simplify our communications in  
our scientific activities..  
  
> I guess you many :-) signs mean to show that you have some theory  
> which comes before all your facts. Can you at least spell it out in more  
> detail, to enlighten us more ? :-)   
  
pip  (pass in peace)  
  
> 			Christoph Schiller  
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: Charlie.Creegan@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan)
Subject: Re: Which theory before observation ?
Summary: color terms are theory laden
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:00:40 GMT

In article <schiller.726741489@hpas5> schiller@prl.philips.nl (schiller c) writes:
>christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:

      [...] Putnam's "What theories are not."  The position
>>outlined there is a little technical, but the central example is that one
>>cannot establish, through obsevation, that a thing is red unless one has
>>a conceptual scheme for colors that includes red in advance.
>
>You are right: one needs a concept of red. But a concept and a theory
>are two different things. Red is a concept formed by children
>before they are six months old, and it gives a name to certain class 
>of colours. When a child says: "it is red", it just says, "it has a similar
>look than all the previous things I have observed, which I call red".
>The statement "It is red" therefore just compares different observations.
>Not much of theory there.
>
>			Christoph Schiller
>

"gives a name to a certain class of colors"?  That is a thoroughly
theory-laden assertion.  
    My 2-year-old uses "green" as a term of
approbation (at least, that's the closest I can figure it).  He does not
have the technique of using color words to refer to what we adult language
users think of as colors.  So it is not "looks" he is comparing.  But he *is*
using linguistic utterances to express his comparison of observations. 
Only when he gains some sophistication will adults be able to straighten
out his conceptual scheme by explaining some theoretical considerations
about color-terms and what kind of observations are relevant to them.
    He may not yet have an explicit theory (or even an explicit concept) but
in order to interact with him you have to have theories and concepts, and
you have to be able to transmit them to him.  His (socially correct)
observations *will* be theory-laden.

Charles Creegan  NC Wesleyan College
I disclaim the below disclaimer.
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Schools, philosophy of science, epistemology
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:36:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0rG0u.IMp.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

>> Ah, but do you ask them why they want to get a graduate degree in
>> philosophy? I would caution all and sundry that your motives had best not
>> include making a living as a philosopher.
> 
>Well, even if I forget to give that particular speech, the APA won't.  It 
>still asks graduate departments to send to all applicants that dreary & 
>discouraging form letter that says, roughly, "You think you're gonna get a 
>JOB in philosophy?  HA Ha ha hahahahahahahahahahaha......"  So if a student 
>applies to 10 schools, 10 copies of that letter show up.  Blah!  I'm 
>surprised ANYONE ever
>decides to go to grad school in philosophy.
>
>  For every philosophy Ph.D. who is
>> successful at doing this (like our very own Dr. Ruth), there are dozens who
>> must resign themselves to lesser lives, toiling among the masses (such as
>> your humble correspondent). 

I invite email or posts on the following topic:
philosophy students (with or without degrees, graduate or undergraduate)
who drop out and live the frugal lifestyle of the classical philosophers --
or something vaguely similar. Surely the PhD's on this newsgroup have
respected friends, former colleagues and students or fellow-students, who
refused "resignation" to any particular social niche and went away to sleep 
on the beach at Key Largo, reading Putnam and watching the sun set, or started
a commune/homestead/truck farm in New Mexico, or something. I am eager to hear 
of anyone who has done such a thing. How do you know them, and how are
they doing?


      Tom Price   |    tp0x@cs.cmu.edu   |   Free will? What free will? 
 *****************************************************************************
  plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:4739 sci.math:17974
From: cxm7@po.CWRU.Edu (Colin Mclarty)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.math
Subject: Re: Those funny secret old words
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:03:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cxm7@po.CWRU.Edu (Colin Mclarty)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, danco@titan.ucc.umass.edu (DANIEL F COHEN) says:

>
> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu (Jamie) writes:
>>>>From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
>>> 
>>>>    SG         Zeleny has perfected the argumentum ad loudmouth. 
>>> Jamie         I wonder if Grossman actually knows what "ad" means, or if he
>>>               only *mistakenly* called himself a loudmouth?
>>> Miner         Apparently you don't know what it means either, unless you're
>>                kidding...<:-)
>
>
>Um...alright, help out a poor kid with only a couple of years of university
>Latin: I was always under the impression "ad" meant the same as "to," "up
>to," or "near to."  Hence, "argumentum ad loudmouth" would seem to be
>a rather silly approximation of "arguing to the loudmouth," which, given that
>Zeleny's aruments were directed at Grossman, would suggest that Grossman, was,
>indeed, the loudmouth in question.
>
	The Latin "ad" like the French "a (accent grave)" can mean any of
those, or can mean "with".
From: e343mh@tamuts.tamu.edu (Michael Hand)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Trisection (was Re: When to call a crank a crank?)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 21:32:32 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamuts.tamu.edu

Russell Turpin writes:

> > Many math departments are visited frequently by fellows...who will 
> > share with any willing -- or even unwilling -- graduate student or 
> > faculty member their method for trisecting the angle,...

Check Underwood Dudley, *A Budget of Trisections* (New York: Springer-Verlag, 
1987).  Fascinating and hilarious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hand                    phone (409)845-5660, fax (409)845-0458
Dept of Philosophy, Texas A&M Univ, College Station TX 77843-4237, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hand                    phone (409)845-5660, fax (409)845-0458
Dept of Philosophy, Texas A&M Univ, College Station TX 77843-4237, USA
e343mh@tamuts.tamu.edu                                  mhand@tamu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Philosophy before science ? (was : Seman
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:41:06 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <102936.2005.14241@kcbbs.gen.nz>, Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:
|>   
|> >  Science *is* the study of basic facts, ....  
|>    (science, basic-facts)  
|>   
|> >  ..time, space, matter, interactions, motion, change. All of these are   
|> >  basic facts.   
|>    (basic-facts)  
|>   
|> >  Science is to be judged by facts...  
|>    (science, facts)  
|>   
|> However My Son!  
|> 'fact' is not a fact unless it is prescribed by a theory...in other words  
|> there are NO facts in science unless we prescribe one by a theory...and when  
|> you withdraw the theory away, all the facts attached to it disappear into the 
|> thin air....it is like this; if we didn't invent QM then we wouldn't have   
|> electrons..but, of course, if electrons are _some_ facts for you :-> then  
|> what would you do without QM, you would look like a fish out of pond :-)  

While in general I agree with your response to the simplistic and
uncritical view expressed above, the view you express here is also
a bit simplistic.  For example, it appears to leave no room for the
existence of a phenomenon that is anomalous with respect to the
current theory, thus prohibiting theory change (also, apparently,
making it unnecessary!).
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: JDK@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu (KASTIN JONATHAN)
Subject: Re: Semantics of Set Theory
Organization: Graduate School and University Center, C.U.N.Y. New York, NY
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:03:54 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Dec31.112231.18915@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu writes:
> 
> I do not understand this appeal to inscrutability; surely it is not
> justified by anything claimed by Quine ("Ontological Relativity"), --
> each Quinean native is perfectly capable of articulating the
> disquotational scheme
> 	"Gavagai" refers to gavagai.  
> If Quine argues that inscrutability of reference is not limited to the
> cases of radical translation between different languages, and that "we
> can reproduce the inscrutability of reference at home", he does so in
> the context of analyzing the case of "homophonic translation" of his
> neighbor's idiolect.  Surely this is a far cry from blithely claiming
> that "reference in one's own language is inscrutable to oneself", --
> one is generally not required to homophonically translate his own
> idiolect.  Randall, I entreat you to abstain from non-standard
> philosophical use of technical terms.

Randall is quite correct in his exegesis of Quine. Quine's behaviorism,
and its attendant denial of the individual's privileged access to his
own internal states, implies that in order to understand his very own
utterances, the speaker must engage in (homophonic) translation. Radical
translation begins at home. (Take this as a reductio if you like.)

Jonathan


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Kastin              I would say that my views are entirely my own, |
| CUNY Grad Center             but that would be ridiculously ahistorical.    |
| Philosophy Department        Besides which, it might presuppose a viewpoint,| 
| jdk@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu     and thus an objective Reality.  :)             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate rejections in science  (was: Truzzi Lecture)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:47:50 GMT

In article <104225@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>The chemical reactivity of the heavier noble (fka inert) gases is
>something that anyone could have detected for decades, but didn't
>since everyone knew it simply could not happen.

I recall Isaac Asimov mentioning in an essay (vague reference there :-).  It
might have been in his noble gases book, though) that detecting the reactivity
earlier than it really was detected wasn't feasible: it was hard to get a lot
of xenon, and fluorine is a _really_ difficult element to store and work with.
I remember being rather puzzled when I read Asimov's comments, since I knew
of no need to refute a claim I never heard, but I found out later that John
Campbell had used it as an example of how scientists are closed-minded.

Note the newsgroups line.  If you remove the Asimov and Campbell references,
please change the group line appropriately.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate rejections in science  (was: Truzzi Lecture)
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:53:01 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1in24aINNb2f@im4u.cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
|> problem Truzzi describes.  But let's be clear about what such an
|> error would be.  It would be the delay by some decades (or at
|> least some years) of the general acceptance in the relevant field
|> of a significant piece of knowledge because those in the field
|> were too stubborn or too cautious or because the institutions
|> concerned were too inflexible.  
|> 
|> Does anyone want to volunteer examples?  Such errors would be
|> particularly interesting in the hard sciences.  To avoid
|> controversy, it would be best if such proposed errors were ones
|> that are now widely recognized as errors.  (Those who believe
|> that their favorite theory today is an example can take this as
|> an historical exercise of looking for the mistakes of
|> yesteryear.)

A successful example may well depend upon how broadly you want to
draw the borders of the domain of such episodes.  I suppose that
the long-running Lysenko episode in soviet genetics/agriculture
would count as an example despite the fact that the rest of the
(scientifically inclined) world did not participate in that
silliness.  Actually, various areas of soviet "science" may prove
to be a rich area to mine for such examples.  I use the quotes
since the influence of politics and ideology is so obviously
a causal factor in this area.  Such examples do seem to require
a social situation in which the "normal" inclinations of scientists
can be effectively suppressed for long periods of time rather than
a situation in which the scientists themselves are doing the
suppressing.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm