84345

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.abortion:121533 alt.atheism:54148 talk.religion.misc:84345
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!uunet!wri!elvis.wri.com!markp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: elvis.wri.com
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
References: <[e-mail]# <1qie61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <1qjd3o$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 14:53:24 GMT
Lines: 28

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Halat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>Omigod, it's an operationalist! Sorry, Jim, but the idea that a theory
>>explaining a myriad of distinctly different observations is merely a
>>"model" is more than sensible people can accept -- your phobia about
>>objective reality notwithstanding.

>First of all, I have no phobia of objective reality.  I'm simply
>saying that the scientific model of the atom is probably not 
>what is really out there.  I'm not saying that there's no object
>that sources these properties we measure from atomic theory.

You hadn't made that clear; I'm glad to have it clarified! So you're
a (physical) objectivist, after all, right?

>Take light as another example.  There are two theories: particle and
>wave.  Each one fails to predict the behavior of light as some point.
>So which is it: particle or wave?  You tell me.  You're the sensible
>one.

Wavicle! Next question? ;-)
--
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those 
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental