***So, I have designed an analytical pipeline which will transform absolutely any random collection of data into a mental image 100% consistent with the mental image of reality I was trained to accept as a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. Since my pipeline makes utterly no constraint at all on the input end, it means that it makes no difference what is at that end (even your supernatural effects Harv), the deductions I make are absolutely true. Put it this way, the output of my pipeline is a paradigm which constrains the input in no way and yet it provides us with great powers of correlation and deduction. A pragmatic position if I ever saw one.***

I have no dispute that you have modeled a 'pipeline'. The question is whether you have enough justification to say that this mathematically constructed 'pipeline' has any correlation to the human condition. There is not enough scientific justification (or philosophical justification) to suggest it since a) you lack (scientific observable) predictions of the future hence we cannot test your model, and b) we do not know enough about the human 'pipeline(s)', thus we cannot know more about these 'things that we know not'.

It may be a pragmatic position for you and Paul, but for most of everyone else it serves no vital purpose, and cannot be shown to do so - at least especially not for the needs of science or the needs of philosophy.

Harv

• Yeah, I know! - doctordick - June 3, 2003 - 17:42 UTC
  • If its over my head... - harvey1 - June 3, 2003 - 17:55 UTC
    • Predicting the outcome of scientific experiments don't.. - bruce - June 3, 2003 - 18:05 UTC
      • Very true - harvey1 - June 3, 2003 - 18:18 UTC