Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!kestrel!ladkin
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: "self-styled philosophers"
Message-ID: <4827@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 13-Feb-86 16:30:45 EST
Article-I.D.: kestrel.4827
Posted: Thu Feb 13 16:30:45 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Feb-86 03:33:05 EST
References: <3189@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 28

In article <3189@umcp-cs.UUCP>, mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (Mark Weiser) writes:
> A recent posting called the Dreyfus' "self-styled philosophers".  This
> is unfair, since Hubert Dreyfus is also styled a philosopher by many another
> philosopher in the area of phenomenology.

Agreed. He is also a professional philosopher, holding a chair at
U.C. Berkeley. His criticisms of AI claims are thoroughly thought
through, with a rigor that a potential critic of his views would
do well to emulate. He has done AI great service by forcing
practitioners to be more self-critical. AAAI should award him
distinguished membership!
His main thesis is that there are certain human qualities and
attributes, for example certain emotions, that are just not the
kinds of things that are amenable to mechanical mimicry. This
general claim seems unexceptional. His examples may not
always be the most appropriate for his claims, some of
his arguments seem to be incorrect, and, since he isn't a
practicing computer scientist, his knowledge of current research
is lacking. But it is intellectual sloppiness to deride him
without addressing his arguments.
There is, however, a political component to the discussion.
He believes he is able to show that certain types of research
cannot justify the claims they make on the basis of which they
are funded. He may be right in some of these cases. This is
clearly a sensitive issue, which muddies the intellectual
waters. Both sides would do well to separate the issues.

Peter Ladkin