🚀 go-pugleaf

This article is from Eugene miya <aurora!eugene@hplabs.HP.COM>
 and was received on Mon Jul 28 22:01:15 1986
 

Devil's Daniel Webster:

Don't mistake the "unbiased" for "unbiased" estimators in statistics.
Unbiased is at best a marginal adjective for statistics (similarly the
concept of "Ideals" in number theory).
I think that for most every computer expert (analysis), you could
find a matching analysis.  Only the simplest analysis could result
in what you term a FACT.  Those can be handled by legalese.

What makes life tough are dilemmas, and dilemmas are what courts
are about.  I would like to think causality, logic, and "facts"
would be enough to "solve" court cases, but computers are still little
more than glorified calculators and sorting/searching machines
for a court.

Consider the proposal for a science court.  Suppose you sent computers
back during the age when funding for research on the properties of
light (wave or particle).  Science court convenes both sides
give their evidence: computer models.  Both have FACTS, both represent
the truth.  Humans deduce paradox/dualism.  The problem is a bit
harder for computers.  I'm glad I would not be funded by the
decisions of such a science court.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya 	    NASA Ames Research Center 	   eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA