Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Dualisms for the 5-minute autodidact Message-ID: <2567@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Date: 10 Mar 89 14:01:00 GMT References: <4369@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <2484@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <2377@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland Lines: 41 In article <2377@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >I would love to see an argument that could convince me that >this was a true statement. I really find Skinnerian determinism repulsive. >But like so many of your postings, you seem to indicate that the proof It is not for the writer to prove, but for the reader to be convinced. My convincement as a reader took some time, and I would do no justice to what I have read by summarising it for the net. All I can say is, go and look here or there, see if there is anything in it, I thought there was. At the most, I suppose I could tempt you. I can start by saying that OxBridge is irrelevant (and less o'that or I'll bray yer one). As for plain English, the connotations of words are dependent on culture. Perhaps nothing can be plain in these domains, hence the need for study. What I was on about was that the anger and outrage over the AI bowdlerizing of "understanding" is not due to some satanic versification breaking deep spiritual taboos. No - the outrage is over the lack of candour and disrespect for language implicit in the bowdlerization, hence the lack of intellectual honesty and a disturbing disregard for liberal academic standards of truth. If these folk were snake-oil salesmen, then no-one would really mind. But academics? Not by the standards which I know! Before I am asked to get down off my high horse, tell me what I'm riding through. I cleaned my shoes this morning. The social and human sciences have long had the good sense to avoid ordinary language, or to quote* an everyday word used in a technical context (most books on Semantics, e.g. Lyons). If AI did the same, we could avoid having to stamp on charlatan usage. After all, how AI describes its work has nothing to do with its efficacy or accuracy. If AI developed a proper techical language disjoint from ordinary language for the most part, then AI workers may gain the academic respect which has been denied them for so long by so many. -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs !ukc!glasgow!gilbert