Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.psychology,sci.psychology.theory,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: On Going Beyond The Information Given & 'Cognition'
Message-ID: <jqbDDFrC7.5qI@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <jqbDD7qsx.4u5@netcom.com> <808566049snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <40t0nm$7tp@mp.cs.niu.edu> <808591191snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 03:36:07 GMT
Lines: 21
Sender: jqb@netcom23.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:32555 comp.ai.philosophy:31797 sci.logic:14253 sci.philosophy.tech:19473 sci.psychology.theory:347 sci.cognitive:9103

In article <808591191snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
David Longley  <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <40t0nm$7tp@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu "Neil Rickert" writes:
>
>> Or perhaps you think the study of cognition is a science after all?
>> 
>> I think you would do better to discontinue your blanket condemnations
>> of the whole field.  Like most sciences, it contains some that is
>> good and some that is worthless.  Perhaps you think that the majority
>> is worthless, and perhaps you are correct, but even so that could not
>> justify blanket condemnation of the whole discipline.
>> 
>
>It isn't even a discipline. It is largely a group of philosophers who do
>not seem to have understood Quine.


What appalling ignorance and arrogance.
-- 
<J Q B>

