[Corpora-List] ANC, FROWN, Fuzzy Logic

[Ruvan Weerasinghe]

a fascinating discussion on a list one would least expect! i've been a 
'lurker' on this list for a while (and to be sure got lots of useful 
pointers on corpus linguistics) but it is nice to know that there are 
folks who are not 'mere engineers' on it (come to think of it, its 
strange to expect engineers on a corpora list - but the reality is that 
more and more of the general area of computational linguistics tends to 
be focused on gaining that extra percentage of accuracy in performance - 
thanks to all those metrics and evaluations!).

i guess my own understanding follows most closely to marks ideas... 
unfortunately i am not so articulate to put it in quite the way he has. 
fundamentally, i too see a distinction between the practice of science 
and the search for truth at least in the modern context (that is not to 
say that scientists of old may not have developed the methodology with a 
view to 'seeking for truth' - which in some cases seems to have been the 
main purpose).

ruvan.

ps: thanks to all for inspiring me to come out of the woodwork!


Mark P. Line wrote:
> Peter Khnlein wrote:
>   
>> Mark P. Line wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I would have to disagree. I think science is defined not by a search for
>>> truth but by use of scientific method.
>>>
>>>       
>> Mark, may I ask, then, what constitutes the "scientific method"?
>> Isn't it the search for true propositions about nature?
>>     
>
> First, I should note that I didn't say "the scientific method". I don't
> actually believe that there's a single description that does justice to
> scientific method in all domains. "Objectively repeatable construction of
> useful models" is about as close as I can come to a common denominator.
>
> Some people, even practicing scientists, do in fact believe that science
> is the search for truth. But I see no evidence that such belief is
> necessary to do science. I can't take credit for the idea, though -- I've
> chosen to follow the thinking of Bas van Fraassen because it makes more
> sense to me (in an Ockhamesque kind of way) than that of competing
> notions.
>
> van Fraassen holds that science is not the search for true propositions
> about nature, or rather that "truth" is simply irrelevant in science. He
> holds instead that science is the search for useful models of nature.
>
> I think the search for true propositions about nature is part of
> philosophy, including theology, but not science.
>
>
>   
>> I mean: you got
>> questions and want to have true answers to those questions. There are
>> ways of obtaining those answers that are acknowledged in some community.
>>     
>
> No there aren't. *shrug*
>
> As you recognize below, we have no way of knowing for sure that an answer
> is "true". So scientific communities of practice are actually providing
> ways of obtaining _useful_ answers, not ways of obtaining "true" answers.
> Right?
>
>
>   
>>> [T]here are
>>> good epistemological reasons for failing to assume we'd know the "truth"
>>> for sure when we saw it.
>>>
>>>       
>> That's right for sure: we might fail to know that an answer is true when
>> we get it. But we will want to know.
>>     
>
> I don't think that wanting to know the truth is necessary for the practice
> of science. It certainly helps to motivate scientists, though, as well as
> theologians and other philosophers. There are lots of things I'd love to
> know. What happens after I die? Is there an anthropomorphic supreme being,
> or is Taoist philosophy closer to the truth?
>
> Van Fraassen isn't saying you have to avoid philosophical or theological
> inquiry about "truth". He's just saying that such inquiry is not a
> necessary part of science.
>
>
>   
>> Not having questions to be answered would make sciences a childs game,
>> playing around with elaborate toys following rules.
>>     
>
> I didn't say anything about not having questions to be answered. I said
> something about needing to believe that the answers are true.
>
> What difference does it make to you scientifically (as opposed to
> philosophically) whether or not there are elementary particles that move
> backwards through time as long as your DVD player works?
>
>
>   
>> And, Mark: success of a theory might be a hint that it's true.
>>     
>
> Lots of theories are successful until they're replaced by later theories.
> So, even if the success of each theory in the sequence might be a hint
> that it's true, I don't think that buys us anything within the scientific
> enterprise.
>
>
> -- Mark
>
> Mark P. Line
> Polymathix
> San Antonio, TX
>
>
>