Oh, and I *have* to laugh . . . .
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.
In the cited wikipedia entry, the phrase "Scientific method is not a recipe:
it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity" is immediately
followed by just such a recipe for the scientific method
A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered
as a guideline for proceeding:[25]
1.. Define the question
2.. Gather information and resources (observe)
3.. Form hypothesis
4.. Perform experiment and collect data
5.. Analyze data
6.. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for
new hypothesis
7.. Publish results
8.. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Matthias Heger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
If MW would be scientific then he would not have asked Ben to prove that MWs
hypothesis is wrong.
The person who has to prove something is the person who creates the
hypothesis.
And MW has given not a tiny argument for his hypothesis that a natural
language understanding system can easily be a scientist.
-Matthias
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Eric Burton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Montag, 20. Oktober 2008 22:48
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [agi] Re: Defining AGI
You and MW are clearly as philosophically ignorant, as I am in AI.
But MW and I have not agreed on anything.
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.
And this is fundamentally what I was trying to say.
I don't think of myself as "philosophically ignorant". I believe
you've reversed the intention of my post. It's probably my fault for
choosing my words poorly. I could have conveyed the nuances of the
argument better as I understood them. Next time!
-------------------------------------------
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/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
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/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
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
