From: Thomas Buckner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 17 2005 - 13:19:34 MST
--- Marc Geddes <email@example.com> wrote:
> There is no clear-cut distinction between
> science and
I cannot say where, but I read that science is
'whate we know' whereas philosophy is 'what we
don't know'. Over time, more and more
'philosophy' has become 'science'. For example,
the argument that 'computers cannot think because
no computer could beat a man at chess' is quite
thoroughly dead, within living memory.
This parallels what Frank Tipler said, to the
effect that cosmology eventually engulfs
theology, as more and more 'unanswerable'
questions are answered. When I hear 'philosophy'
I hear 'there is still room for disagreement' but
when I hear 'science' I hear 'this issue is
settled beyond reasonable doubt, except among
One of the more intriguing things about AI
research is that even the experts are not quite
sure where philosophy ends and science begins,
*precisely because* so much is still speculative.
When some of these questions are settled, it will
only be because Something Happened to settle them
once and for all. (For some reason, I am reminded
of the bet the Los Alamos scientists had on
whether the first atom bomb would ignite the
entire atmosphere or not).
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT