Eric:
"Ben Goertzel says that there is no true defined method
to the scientific method (and Mark Waser is clueless for thinking that
there
is)."
This is pretty profound. I never saw Ben Goertzel abolish the
scientific method. I think he explained that its implementation is
intractable, with reference to expert systems whose domain knowledge
necessarily extrapolates massively to cover fringe cases. A strong AI
would produce its own expert system and could follow the same general
scientific method as a human. Can you quote the claim that there is no
such thing
Eric,
You and MW are clearly as philosophically ignorant, as I am in AI. The
reason there is an extensive discipline called philosophy of science, (as
with every other branch of knowledge), is that there are conflicting
opinions and arguments about virtually every aspect of science.
Yes, there is a very broad consensus that science - the scientific method -
generally involves a reliance on evidence, experiment and measurement But
exactly what constitutes evidence, and how much is required, and what
constitutes experiment, either generally or in any particular field, and
what form theories should take, are open to, and receiving, endless
discussion. Plus new kinds of all of these are continually being invented.
Hence the wiki entry on scientific method:
"Scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination,
and creativity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
This is basic stuff.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
