In article <K8b%3.2898$QA6.185207808 at news.telia.no>,
Patrik Bagge <pab at neramd.no> wrote:
>concept of success in science = ability to explain
>and predict reality , period.
Okay, let's work with that.
>example of predicting reality = weatherprognosis
>do we agree?
Not really. Too complicated. Your brain is probably just chemistry and
physics. However, even if we knew *all* of the chemistry and physics, we
wouldn't necessarily be able to model your brain effectively.
>if we still agree, then we can connect
>a successfull science with 'successfull weatherprognosis'
This assumes success is all-or-nothing. In fact, we get better forecasts now
than we did when I was a kid, so I'm assuming that part of science has
improved.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs at plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
