On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 08:58:21AM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote: : HaloO Larry, : : you wrote: : >That would be cool. I'd like to see our community build up a pool of : >theoreticians who are not allergic to the practicalities of building a : >language for ordinary people to think in. It is my persistent belief : >(and fond hope) that theory and practice don't always have to pull in : >opposite directions. : : Well, quoting Einstein: "Nothing is more practical than a sound theory!" : : :))
Well, sure, but it's psychologically interesting that you personally find an appeal to authority more practical in this situation. :-) Besides, we all understand that Einstein is being disengenuous here in reducing the correlation between sound theory and practice to a single dimension. But human existence is multidimensional, and it is obvious from casual inspection of human history that having a sound theory is only moderately correlated with adaptiveness. Sure, sound theory will occasionally save you from earning a Darwin award, but the correlation breaks down anywhere a low-overhead heuristic is more efficient than a high-maintenance theory. The human psyche is a mishmash of rules of thumb, and Einstein's thumb is only two of them. Anyway, human languages have little to do with sound theory. At best you might try to develop a theory of sound, which we call linguistics. My assertion that we can do better with computer languages is a persistent belief and fond hope, but you'll note I don't actually claim to be either rational or right. Except when it's convenient. :-) Larry
