Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!iris.cis.ohio-state.edu!byland
From: byland@iris.cis.ohio-state.edu (Tom Bylander)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: UNIFIED MODEL FOR KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION? (IMPOSSIBLE
Message-ID: <133090@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 91 15:06:45 GMT
References: <9106110020.AA17886@lilac.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
Lines: 26

In article <9106110020.AA17886@lilac.berkeley.edu> ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) writes:
>...I question the premise that one can start with that objective propositional
>account.  This may sound solipsistic, but the only accounts we can give of
>events of the world are based on perceptions, be they our own, those of
>"credible sources," or interpretations of devices....
>
>I think it is the lack of such an objective starting point that supports Cam's
>position that the issue here is not "truth" (so, yes, Hutchison IS "barking up
>the wrong tree") but sociology--specifically the role the inter-personal
>behavior contributes to communication....

I agree that "perceptions" are not completely objective, but if they
did not deliver some element of truth, then a lot of things become
hard to explain.  How do humans and other animals with sophisticated
sensors survive if their perceptions do not provide appropriate
information about the world, i.e., something true about the world?
Are scientific arguments about cold fusion, ozone depletion, dinosaur
extinction, cholesterol, and so on merely sociological?

I think a more reasonable position is that perceptions provide
evidence about many aspects of the world, and that the quality of our
assertions about the world depends on the quality of the evidence that
supports them.

Tom Bylander
byland@cis.ohio-state.edu