[Corpora-List] ANC, FROWN, Fuzzy Logic

[Mark P. Line]

John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> MPL> For science to work, theories and other models don't have
>  > to be things that are "true". They just have to be things that
>  > are _useful_ -- and that implies a purpose against which any
>  > scientific model must be evaluated. (Bas van Fraassen)
>
> I agree to a large extent, but I would emphasize the distinction
> between engineering and pure science.  The question of "truth" --
> i.e., a correspondence with some reality that exists independently
> of what we may think about it -- is science, but the question of
> usefulness is engineering.  Both are important, but we should be
> clear about which goals we are pursuing in any particular project.

I would have to disagree. I think science is defined not by a search for
truth but by use of scientific method. Engineering is defined by the
innovation and modification of (natural or artificial) systems, sometimes
but not always for a pre-determined purpose. Frequently, the scientific
method has to be applied in order to solve a problem in engineering. This
is not because the engineer needs to find the truth, but because she lacks
a useful model for her subsequent innovation and because she believes that
a useful model for this purpose is best arrived at using the scientific
method. Thus, science and engineering are often intertwined.

"Truth" plays no necessary role in the scientific method, and there are
good epistemological reasons for failing to assume we'd know the "truth"
for sure when we saw it. It doesn't buy us anything (within science or
engineering) to treat phlogiston theory as "true", nor electron theory.
Theories only have to be useful. Electron theory is exceedingly useful
today (in pure science and in engineering), and nobody would doubt that.
But if it's true in the current form, then you have committed to (among
other things) the existence of matter that moves backwards through time on
a regular basis.

The point is that it's perfectly reasonable to _use_ electron theory for
whatever it's good for, while still failing to commit to all the
(increasingly spooky) ramifications the theory would have for the nature
of reality if it were really true. (You can always go ahead and stipulate
that electron theory is true and believe that all the spooky ramifications
describe the true nature of reality. But that takes you out of the realm
of science and into the realm of philosophy.)

Even phlogiston theory could be useful today as long as the dataset was
appropriately constrained (social taboos about using a theory perceived to
be obsolete notwithstanding). The analogy to Chomskyan theory is obvious
and immediate... :)


-- Mark

Mark P. Line
Polymathix
San Antonio, TX