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