Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!mcnc!rti!ntpdvp1!kenp
From: kenp@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Ken Presting)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Searle and Radical Translation
Summary: Attitude Adjustment
Message-ID: <626@ntpdvp1.UUCP>
Date: 29 Aug 90 16:06:14 GMT
References: <612@ntpdvp1.UUCP> <5362@puggsly.cme.nist.gov> <614@ntpdvp1.UUCP> <8876@ur-cc.UUCP>
Organization: SNA Solutions Inc., Contract Programming Group
Lines: 67

In article <8876@ur-cc.UUCP>, ewe3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Erdman West) writes:
> In article <620@ntpdvp1.UUCP> kenp@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Ken Presting) writes:
> >I hope that you can now agree that this is both obvious and trivial.
> 
> Excuse me, but I really hate it when someone feels the need to be superior
> and express to the world how awesome his mind is so much so that he has to
> point out "obvious" and "trivial" things to other peons.  If they were

I have been away for two weeks, and was disappointed to find this article.

Scott, you may have missed the articles by Bob Kohout which prompted my 
condescending tone.  His postings included very specific assertions of
exactly the type you deplore - that those who disagree with his opinion
of John Searle are too incompetent to merit serious attention.

My response to his sarcastic insults was an honest effort in plain algebra,
and the remark to which you object is intended to *minimize* the significance
of my mathematical point.  

> obvious and trivial then you wouldn't be pointing them out, so since they're
> not, then don't say that.  It makes you sound smug and superior and just

This is a mistake.  To say that a point is "obvious" is to say that one
considers argument unnecessary.  To say that a point is "trivial" is to say
that one considers arguing about it to be unrewarding.  Often the formal
structure of a larger argument or explanation requires mentioning facts 
which are obvious and trivial.  To say that something is obvious and trivial
can help to avoid confusion, and focus attention on important points.


> injects a sense of a battle with the outcome determining some kind of
> winner.  We are not here to show who's "the best, the brightest", but to
> find excellent ideas and well constructed arguements and clear points.  I
> post this to the net and not through e-mail to Ken only because this type of
> attitude is displayed here all too often.

I second this idealistic attitude, but I must confess to having a finite
amount of patience.  By no means do all contributors to the Net take the
spirit of curiosity and exploration as their guide.  Some simply want to see
opposing views disappear, and are willing to use ridicule to that end.  

Usenet may be famous for the flame, but it is not alone in providing a forum
for ad hominem attacks.  Anyone who thinks in public (in print or at 
conferences) is likely to find some unpleasant adjectives attached to their
work.  

This fact has important consequences for cognitive science.  Thinking simply
does not occur in the absence of emotional responses.  Views are never
adopted purely on the grounds of logical argument.  That does not justify
illogic, of course.  It does imply, however, that to make a contribution to
a discussion conducted by human beings, one cannot ignore the emotions of
oneself and one's interlocutors.  It follows that pure inference engines will
never pass for human.

Kohout seems to have supposed that he could achieve his ends better by fighting
than by cooperating.  Since he has repeatedly insulted my intelligence in 
no uncertain terms, I decided, rather than letting the issue drop, to fight
back.  I am glad to see that Bob has taken the trouble to post an article 
with some formal objections.  Perhaps the tone of the discussion will now
change.

Perhaps we will both learn something. 

> Scott West
> "A good idea doesn't care who has it, and neither should you."

Ken Presting   ("You were expecting a saint?")