🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Oct31.171156.16978@husc3.harvard.edu>
zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>DC:
>>Just for fun:
>>
>>If you define the universe as containing only a fixed and finite number of
>>objects to which properties may be ascribed (a favorite assumption for some
>>CS folks of my acquaintance), then there is a very clear way in which the
>>observation of non-black non-crows provides support for the hypothesis 
>>that 'All crows are black.'

>Isn't it a pity, though, that favorite assumptions of your CS pals have
>absolutely no bearing on the universe which they inhabit!  As if one needed
>any more proof that Computer "Science" isn't... would anyone care to recall
>Socrates' comparison of rhetoric to cookery?

(Ooo ... I can't resist the temptation!)

Please give us some more proofs that we computer "scientists" aren't.

(I must be a masochist. Something tells me I'm going to regret this.)
--
Angus H. Rodgers  (PhD student), | arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk  
Dept. of Computer Science, Queen | [ +44 | 0 ] 71 975 5241   
Mary & Westfield College,  Mile  | "But what is contact? No two points
End Rd., London E1 4NS, England  | are in contact." -- A.N. Whitehead.