From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!jeff Tue Feb 11 15:26:08 EST 1992
Article 3622 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Robotic Follies
Message-ID: <1992Feb10.205727.3829@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 10 Feb 92 20:57:27 GMT
References: <1992Feb6.164620.1368@oracorp.com> <1992Feb7.110004.8578@husc3.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Network News Administrator)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 56

In article <1992Feb7.110004.8578@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Feb6.164620.1368@oracorp.com> 
>daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>>Mikhail, it may very well be that people fail to appreciate the
>>quality of your arguments through stupidity or through intellectual
>>laziness. However, given that *nobody* on this group seems to fully
>>appreciate your wisdom, you might condescend to making your arguments
>>accessible to the lowly masses, if you desire to be understood. If you
>>have no such desire, then it will remain a puzzle as to why you post
>>at all. A voice crying in the wilderness, perhaps?
>
>Daryl dearest, *people* have absolutely no trouble appreciating the quality
>of my philosophical arguments.  I've had no difficulty whatsoever in
>communicating them to Hilary Putnam, David Kaplan, Jeff Dalton, Kit Fine,
>Alonzo Church, and Tal Kubo, to name but a few.

Since this is not the first time I have been mentioned (by MZ) in such
a context, I think I should say something.  I don't always understand
what MZ is saying, and I can see how some people might think they're being
answered only with abuse and by appeals to authority disguised as 
references to books, papers, etc.  On the other hand (and this is to
answer things said in several messages, rather than to directly adress
Daryl's):

(1) It is entirely possible to have a reasonable exchange with Mikhail
in which he explains his position, sometimes at considerable length,
and in which he addresses the points you make.

(2) MZ does have a wide knowledge of the philosophical literature in
certain areas, and is willing to provide references to the relevant
parts (in the Putnam discussion he posted a 2+ page bibliography from
which to find out about Church's views).  Moreover, it isn't always
necessary to have as your aim the winning of arguments (by one side or
another).  A sometimes more reasonable aim is to obtain information.

(3) It is a good idea to have references to the literature.  Most
papers (let alone books) are longer than net articles and so provide
more information or a more complete presentation of it.  Moreover,
this makes it easier to see where a position is placed in "philosophy 
space".

(4) In many cases, the quality of the discussion would be improved
if the participants had to do some reading rather than just respond
to postings with whatever their views were at the moment.

There is obviously a kind of net discussion in which exchanges with MZ
tend to degenerate to useless flame wars.  My point is that another
kind is possible.  This is not to say you will necessarily get a
complete explanation that you will understand, completely presented
on the net.  After all, presenting such explanations is a pretty
difficult task (consider, for instance, that many people publish
rather long books in their attempt to present a position fully).
On the other hand, I think it will be difficult to maintain the
impression that MZ has no desire to be understood.

-- jd


