Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.psychology,sci.psychology.theory,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!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: <jqbDDHuyI.BFL@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <jqbDD7qsx.4u5@netcom.com> <808591191snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <jqbDDFrC7.5qI@netcom.com> <808665510snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 06:49:30 GMT
Lines: 42
Sender: jqb@netcom23.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:32582 comp.ai.philosophy:31853 sci.logic:14320 sci.philosophy.tech:19489 sci.psychology.theory:354 sci.cognitive:9125

In article <808665510snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
David Longley  <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <jqbDDFrC7.5qI@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com "Jim Balter" writes:
>
>> 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.
>> -- 
>
>Whatever my failings are, they pale into into insignificance next 
>to yours.

Tu Quoque arguments are the tools of idiots and intellectual charlatans.

>Anyone with  an  undergraduate degree  in   psychology 
>after  1970 would know how much work there is which  shows   that  
>perception,  let alone cognition, is influenced by  expectations. 
>As  a  consequence,  our observations  naturally  go  beyond  the 
>information given.  
>
>Arguing with me won't change this empirical fact.

Like so much of what you post, this is a non sequitur.
I didn't argue with you, I merely pointed out that you are ignorant
and arrogant.
-- 
<J Q B>

