Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcnc!gatech!hubcap!steve
From: steve@hubcap.UUCP (Steve )
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Comment on Superconductivity
Message-ID: <324@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Jul-87 09:02:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: hubcap.324
Posted: Tue Jul 21 09:02:42 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jul-87 06:48:43 EDT
References: <8707210421.AA16893@brahms.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Lines: 23

in article <8707210421.AA16893@brahms.Berkeley.EDU>, obnoxio@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) says:
> 
> In article <2385@ames.arpa>, eugene@pioneer (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>>This is why our science can predict the new discoveries of
>>superconductivity right?

This discussion is getting a bit out of hand.  The question before us is the
of philosophy within the scientific method.  Ad hominem arguments aside, there
is an interplay.  Let's take QM, for example.  Many basic changes to the
view of the world were required - and even folks like Einstein were not 
particularly happy about it. (That's the model part).  But whether or not
one should accept the Copenhaven intrepretation is (I claim) a philosophical
issue.

Perhaps a clearer distinction is the Brouwer intuitionistic argument -
he flat wouldn't accept the idealistic view proposed by Hilbert et. al.
Having said so, he proposed to "do it all over," logic and all.  Now,
do you accept Hilbert or Brouwer?  Or both?

Steve Stevenson                            steve@hubcap.clemson.edu
(aka D. E. Stevenson),                     dsteven@clemson.csnet
Department of Computer Science,            (803)656-5880.mabell
Clemson Univeristy, Clemson, SC 29634-1906