84103

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.abortion:121178 alt.atheism:53788 talk.religion.misc:84103
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!gumby!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!heifetz!rotag!kevin
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Who, me???
References: <1qme79$[e-mail]> <1qu2c9$[e-mail]> <1qvtk4$[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 15:26:11 GMT
Lines: 70

In article <1qvtk4$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1qu2c9$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>In article <1qme79$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>#In article <1qm36b$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>#>In article <1qktj3$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>#>Now if we're valuing procedures subjectively, and science is a procedure,
>>#>science cannot be valued non-subjectively.
>>#
>>#You're just overloading the word value, AGAIN, I suspect.
>>
>>Maybe you're underloading it.   If, from hundreds of alleged procedures for
>>obtaining truth about the material world, I pick science, then that is a 
>>subjective judgement according to the strict meaning of the terms, yes?
>
>Yes, naturally.
>
>>Ordinarily, it is also a *value* judgement, though it needn't be (one 
>>could "do science" without believing it was worth a damn in any context, 
>>though that hardly seems sensible).
>
>No, you're just overloading the word "value" again. It is an
>estimation of probability of correctness, not an estimation of "worth."
>Shit, I don't even know what "worth" means. Consider the possibility
>that I am not interested in knowing truth. I could still believe
>that science was the most likely way to get truth, and not value
>science at all. 

But you STILL value likely ways over unlikely ways, correct? If I wanted to
know the "truth" about, say, the specific gravity of chicken soup, I could 
employ science -- meters, gauges, scales, etc. -- or I could just talk a walk 
on a beach somewhere. Both have a possibility of generating the truthful 
answer -- in the case of the walk on the beach, it would have to be some sort 
of sudden inspiration about the specific gravity of chicken soup which just 
happened to be truthful -- so what makes me choose the scientific method of 
truth-determination over the "walk on the beach" method? Because I *VALUE* 
science's higher probability of obtaining truth, that's why. Everywhere one 
turns, there is intentionality and value judgments lurking just beneath the 
veneer of detached objectivity. It is an inescapable aspect of the human 
condition.

>>#>#Like I said before, DES works whether I value my privacy or
>>#>#not.
>>#>
>>#>O.K., which DES?  The abstract function DES? that stops working in any 
>>#>important sense if no-one cares for the importance of truth, mathematics, 
>>#>meaning, information, etc.  A DES chip or DES s/w?  That stops working in 
>>#>any important sense if no-one values science, objective reality, etc.   
>>#>DES does not work in a value vacuum.  Nothing else does, either.
>>#
>>#This is just truth by blatant assertion. Your "in any important sense"
>>#seem to be just weasel words. Imagine that I have a box which
>>#accepts 16 bytes and uses the first 8 to ECB the second 8.
>>#It still does a perfect job of DESing, whether or not any input
>>#is being made at the time--whether or not anyone values mathematics..
>>
>>The concept of a DES box which can be assumed to work as you describe in 
>>the absence of an assumption of objective reality is incoherent.  Such a box 
>>may as well be assumed to wear a dufflecoat and go to the Limerick Races.
>
>Truth by blatant assertion again, Frank. It's observationally the
>case that when you measure it, it works. It can be reasonably well
>assumed that it will work even when you are not measuring it, barring
>quantum silliness about how it might have disappeared and reappeared.
>It doesn't take a notion of objective reality to discuss my observations.

Well, I would add that the attribute "works even when not being measured" is 
*ALSO* something which is valued and intended, Eric. All you've succeeded in 
doing is kicking this up another level in the hierarchy of values.

								- Kevin