🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan27.101200.14835@news.unige.ch>, swann@divsun.unige.ch (SWANN philip) writes:
> In article <1993Jan23.015123.12162@psych.toronto.edu>, christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
> 
>> >
>> Obsessive use of an unexplicated notion of "model"  ("schema", etc.)
>> is at the core.  The "theories" put forward by researchers such a 
>> Johnson-Laird, Lakoff, Rosch, Gick & Holyoak, Cheng & Holyoak lack 
>> rigor in the extreme. To act like a Hempelian for a moment, theories
>> have got to have formal objects manipulated by formal rules or they
>> are in grave danger of relying upon our intuitions for their
>> explanatory power.
> 
> Surely formalization is neither necessary nor sufficient for a theory
> to be powerful or productive. There's a theory at the moment that the
> Dinosaurs were warm-blooded: I don't see how this theory could be
> formalized, nor do I see how it relies on our "intuitions" - but I'm sure
> that it's an interesting theory that contributes to scientific progress.
> 
Correct me if I am wrong (I am very good in being wrong), but if we look at
the problem in terms of input --> process --> output, process is the part
that "formalization" is most suitable in theory development.  The I/O parts
are more suitable in descriptive stats.  We do not "formalize" a theory for
describing the physical and chemical property of copper -- or do we?

Pete