Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!husc6!mit-eddie!mit-amt!trevor From: trevor@mit-amt (Trevor Darrell) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Where might CR understanding come from (if it exists) Message-ID: <3684@mit-amt> Date: 2 Apr 89 03:29:26 GMT References: <2691@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <813@htsa.uucp> <2705@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Reply-To: trevor@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Trevor Darrell) Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA Lines: 25 In article <2705@crete> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: >... >My argument is initially from scepticism. I extend the argument to all >forms of (pseudo-)intellectual activity which cannot improve our >understanding. >... >The purpose of research is to advance knowledge. Advancing knowledge >requires an understanding of what can, and cannot, count as knowledge. >In our bloated academia, respect for such standards is diminishing. Excuse me, but exactly how does one determine when an activity can or cannot improve understanding? And have you published your test of what can, and cannot, count as knowledge? ``References?'' Would you have had all intellectual explorations throughout the ages constrained by these tests? All the artistic explorations? Would you perscribe them as an absolute guide to your child's education? Are you perhaps a bit lacking in the rigor of your debate? (Maybe diatribe is a better term?...) Trevor Darrell MIT Media Lab, Vision Science. trevor@whitechapel.media.mit.edu