Xref: utzoo news.groups:2210 comp.cog-eng:386 sci.bio:799 sci.misc:720 sci.research:298
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utai!tjhorton
From: tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.cog-eng,sci.bio,sci.misc,sci.research
Subject: Re: Philosophy - not a pejorative (Re: time for sci.psych???)
Message-ID: <4222@utai.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jan 88 20:01:29 GMT
References: <1416@uhccux.UUCP> <4215@utai.UUCP> <149@glenlivet.hci.hw.ac.uk>
Reply-To: tjhorton@ai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 56
Keywords: psychology newsgroup
Summary: 

In article <149@glenlivet.hci.hw.ac.uk> gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
>In article <4215@utai.UUCP> tjhorton@ai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes:
>>... perhaps not particularly focussed, with too much potential for floundering
>> in philosophy... the next verbal battleground without referees.
>
>What follows is a response to this, perhaps secondary, polemic.

>...People who flounder hopelessly are probably short on their
>philosophical training.

Not true.  See note below on Russell.  Realize, also, that there are
conceptual chasms between fields.  From my experience, in 2 graduate
courses in the philosophical issues of cognitive science, these chasms
are are both apparent and very pronounced.  Discussions can lock onto
rather comical issues.

Philosophical arguments about computational models of intelligence, for
instance, among those without comprehensive conceptual bases in computer
science, often seem to reduce to expressions of superstition and ignorance,
at least among the vocal.  The intuitions aren't there.  The discussions
do worse than flounder.  On the other hand, I have great respect for the
philosohical underpinnings of our models of mind.  (Kuhn, Burke, Hacking,
Descartes, Pylyshyn, Fodor, Smith, Searle, Vygotsky, Chomsky, Polanyi ...
these are authors on the bookshelf in front of me, for the very reason
that I respect the fundamental questions beneath experiment and math).

>Please don't use 'philosophy' to mean 'incompetent rambling'.  Sadly,
>'philosophical' is becoming a pejorative as the cookbook uncultured approach
>of technical education (sorry, training) takes hold of more academics...

I agree.  

>I suggest you read Russell's "Problems of Philosophy" as an antidote to
>any feelings that philosophy is bound to flounder...

I suggest, in balance, Russell's "The Cult of Common Usage," for instance.
It describes his fundamental displeasure with certain kinds of philosophy,
specifically those that do not reach beyond a level of linguistic analysis.

>As for referees, won't your own judgement suffice?

Experience would seem to indicate that a few vocal individuals may press
their arguments on the entire network, rather than delivering ambivalent
analysis or investigating before disseminating.  I see every reason to
describe, precis, and analyze works of common interest.  But that's not
what has happened in many newsgroups bordering on philosophy.  Advocacy
is too easy to slip into.  There are better methods for enlightenment.

If we are to create a newsgroup, it might provide the means to filter
out non-essential ingredients like advocacy, that seem to drive some
of the less valuable newsgroups around.
-- 
Timothy J Horton (416) 979-3109   tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
Dept of Computer Science          tjhorton@ai.utoronto    (other Bitnet)
University of Toronto,            tjhorton@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400)
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!tjhorton