> Richard Brodie[SMTP:RBrodie@brodietech.com] wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 8, 1997 1:49 AM, Robin Faichney
> [SMTP:r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk] wrote:
> > A pattern-matching algorithm,
> > set up to compare scanned-in photos of the cloud and of a
> > sheep in the appropriate position WRIT viewpoint, with the
> > M set, will find and match these patterns, because all are
> > really there.
>
> No, your program will find and match those patterns because you have
> programmed it to do so.
>
So it would match *any* pattern it was programmed to find?
I don't think so. Even if it will only recognise one pattern,
and doesn't always find that, nevertheless if it does find it
sometimes -- I mean, strictly, if there is any statistical
significance to the results -- then how do we account for
that, if there are no patterns "out there"?
More generally, as someone else put it: what does science
do, if not find consistencies in patterns out there?
Robin