Some 3-D Trig [was Re: Mar...]



What's the "it" here?
Yes, I know the principles of the scientific method.
Yes, I am quite familiar with philosophy of science.
I'm not sure which you were referring to. I'm not sure what you are considering to be "Theory of Science". If that's the same as philosophy of science, then it gives a poor account of science. If it is something different, I would appreciate any references or web links.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about:
"Pursuit of Truth" "From Stimulus to Science"
Both Harvard Press.
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Absurd "Just So" stories.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Could you elaborate on that - if only for the benefit of those who won't understand what that dismissal means.
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just to clarify from a different perspective:- the above are two short books which summarise much of the work of one of this century's most influential philosophers. Both written in the 1990s, a clue to their conception lies in Quine's statement that "Philosophy of science is philosophy enough". Since his 1951 paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", Quine has made the case for the most austere empiricism in the history of philosophy aka "Enlightened Empiricism". In some respects he could be said to have brought the objectives of Positivism to fruition. In two Dogmas" he shows that there are good grounds for rejecting the very premise for there being a distinct philosophy (the pursuit of meaning through the analysis of language) namely that of analyticity. This leaves one with the pursuit of truth - science. Clarification of the pursuit of truth becomes naturalized epistemology, (philosophy of science). This in turn is to be rooted in the empirical analysis of learning.
Those interested should consult the references given above and elsewhere.
It has some serious implications for the future of various lines of work within what is widely referred to as "Cognitive Science" - for reasons which may or may not now be immediately apparent. I have, in a number of different threads, made an effort to explicate some of this over recent weeks. What folk do and what they think they do should be looked at in the context of research on actuarial vs. clinical judgement. A section in the following paper covers an applied project's theoretical sections and provides some of the key research findings and references.
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm
other papers at that site are also relevant - though on first glance they will appeal to few.
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How do you know Steve Waltz referred to the above theories? Do you seriously think those constitute the only philosophical treatment of the subject? Let me tell you: they are not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The above, like your earlier post, is just bizarre.
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message

"Things that work."
Universally accepted. The goal of comp.ai.philosophy. What is and is not OT. The distinction between religion/esoteric philosophy and logic/science. What Neil means by pragmatic thinking. What makes programming useful. What makes behaviorism useful. What makes cognitive science useful. What makes neuroscience useful. What Minsky is trying to say. What Longely is trying to say. What Eray wants us to ignore. Why Ken is not taken seriously. Why Curt is. What ended the Dark Ages. What decides which culture will prevail. The common denominator. The bridge between fields. A focus to promote civility and teamwork. What we need to talk about to achieve AI of any kind. What does and doesn't get Larry flames.

"Ingoramus" :-)
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course. You wouldn't say "two origamuses" would you?
Larry 8~:)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/8/03 12:29 PM, in article snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com, "Acme Debugging"

Perhaps origamos ?
*smirk*
Fred.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

taught.
By that logic the infant Jesus was visited by Magoos
I'm amazed they could find the place
*smirkier*
Robin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"smirkier" :-)
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In sci.logic I have to add "apparently." They are real persnickety.

That's probably the best that could be said of them. Thanks.

Don't forget "grandstanding."
(Thanks for the criticism. I'm chewin' on it.)
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What the hell are you talking about? The philosophy of science, as discussed by Popper, Feyerabend, and Lakatos is all about the *process* by which scientific discovery can occur. Just what do you suppose Feyerabend's "Against Method" is about? Not "justification", you ignoramus.

My God but you're an arrogant preening prick -- and Fine's got his mouth wide open for you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trewth snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Trewth Seeker) wrote:

Conmen deserve no respect. You are but one of them.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Arrogant patronizing ad hominem drivel. This sort of post never changes people's behavior in the intended direction. It's, well, childish and immature to suppose that it does.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That you think so shows what a weak grasp you have of the subjects Quine discusses. Rickert asked Walz for references pertaining to the "Theory of Science" that he was talking about. The notion that Quine's books pertain to *that* is downright Platonic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then enlighten me - what is "Theory of Science" if it is not the philosophy of science.
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is no such a thing.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trewth snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Trewth Seeker) wrote:

Pathetic that is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.