Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!pyramid!voder!blia!blic!inspect
From: inspect@blic.BLI.COM (Mfg Inspection)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: English and Japanese, a coinciding topic
Message-ID: <166@blic.BLI.COM>
Date: 10 Feb 88 16:43:20 GMT
References: <161@blic.BLI.COM> <6689@drutx.ATT.COM>
Organization: Britton Lee, Los Gatos, CA
Lines: 28
Summary: thank you

In article <6689@drutx.ATT.COM>, clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) writes:
> in article <161@blic.BLI.COM>, inspect@blic.BLI.COM (Mfg Inspection) says:
> > 
> > decision to write what I did.  Ignoring the facts in favor of maintaining a
> > pet theory is arrogant and specious and bad research. However, it was rude 
> > of me to point that out, and I apologise. 
> 
> This comes in a very fairly written answer.
> For myself, thank you, for the integrity.  And I apologize 
> for harshness, sincerely.

Thank you for offering intelligent criticism, not so much harsh as challenging.
Apparently, my posting was not entirely clear and you gave me the opportunity
to clarify it somewhat. Writing is a poor medium of idea exchange; it is better
at providing information.

We are all "victims" of our cultural conditioning from time to time, but the
real test is when we attempt to go beyond and try to understand the positions
of other. Again, there is no one perfect culture, mine or anyone else's, ex-
cept subjectively. Cultural conditioning and its ramifications are probably
essential as part of the study of AI.

Please.  Creativity needs no justification.  All I am writing is that when
there ARE quantitative facts available, they should not be ignored in favor
of the beauty of a creative thought.  Creativity and scientific method are
neither interdependant at all times nor are they mutually exclusive. By no
means do I insist on the rational in every discussion, only when the rational
is applicable.