Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!seismo!utah-cs!shebs
From: shebs@utah-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
Message-ID: <3674@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Feb-86 10:56:28 EST
Article-I.D.: utah-cs.3674
Posted: Fri Feb  7 10:56:28 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 08:39:33 EST
References: <7500002@ada-uts.UUCP> <3600036@iuvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs)
Organization: University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Lines: 16

In article <3600036@iuvax.UUCP> marek@iuvax.UUCP writes:
 ...one of the most misguided AI efforts to date is
 taxonomizing a la Michalski et al:  setting up categories along arbitrary
 lines dictated by somebody or other's intuition.  If AI does not have
 the mechanism-cum-explanation to describe a phenomenon, what right does it
 have to a) taxonomize it and b) demand that its taxonomizing be recognized
 as an achievement?

I assume you have something wonderful that we haven't heard about?

Or do you believe that because there are unsolved problems in physics,
chemists and biologists have no right to study objects whose behavior is
ultimately described in terms of physics?

							stan shebs
							(shebs@utah-orion)