RE: virus: Sham(an) again
Robin Faichney (r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk)
Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:55:04 +0100
> From: David McFadzean[SMTP:david@lucifer.com]
>
> At 10:06 AM 9/17/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
> >http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/TRIALERR.html
> >
> >This is one of the fundamental principles of evolution. There is no
> >theoretical aspect to it, whatsoever, which is why it's not science.
> >This is not a case of which comes first, experiment or hypothesis,
> >because there is no hypothesis, and therefore, unless you use
> >the word very loosely, no experiment either.
>
> It took me awhile but I think I found a problem in your position.
> If human action is not completely random (and I think it obviously
> is not) then there is an implicit theory behind their choices.
>
OK. First, I was talking about some human action, not all.
Second, I don't think non-random implies theory-driven,
in the scientific sense, anyway. As I said (or tried to) in
the PS of that message, I think the main motivator is not
the testing of theories, but the attainment of happiness.
Now, the former will play some part in the latter for
everyone, and maybe for some a very big part, but it
can never take its place.
Robin