From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!hsdndev!burrhus!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Thu Feb 20 15:19:54 EST 1992
Article 3643 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ukma!hsdndev!burrhus!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Robotic Follies
Message-ID: <1992Feb11.091313.8715@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 11 Feb 92 14:13:11 GMT
References: <1992Feb7.110004.8578@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Feb10.205727.3829@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <1992Feb11.122413.5016@nuscc.nus.sg>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 82
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1992Feb11.122413.5016@nuscc.nus.sg> 
smoliar@iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar) writes:

>In article <1992Feb10.205727.3829@aisb.ed.ac.uk> 
>jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:

JD:
>>(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.

SS:
>This is a very good point, but it is also highly idealistic.  I think it is
>important to acknowledge that not all subscribers bring the same level of
>intensity of scholarship to any "serious" bulletin board.  (rec.music.classical
>ranges in content from discussions of music theory which may ultimately find
>their way into the published literature through first-hand experiences of both
>performance and composition all the way down to incessant requests for a good
>recording of CARMINA BURANA.  It takes all kinds to make that world.)  It is
>also a sad truth that not all subscribers have access to a well-endowed
>library.  Just because they lack the resources to do the necessary homework,
>should they be attacked for trying to contribute?  Well, if they approach a
>subject from a position of extreme naivete, it would be a disservice NOT to
>point out that they are out of their depth;  but to rant on at excessive length
>with no objective other than to humiliate the poor curious soul is, if nothing
>else, bad manners.  Now perhaps good manners are not part of the Zeleny style.
>Perhaps, like Menander, he believes that "The man who has never been flogged
>has never been taught;"  so he figures that the sort of verbal flogging which
>he performs with such relish is actually the ultimate tool of education.  On
>the other hand, if he chose to simply ignore those who he has decided are
>hopeless fools and devote his attention to those who CAN engage in profitable
>dialog with him, not only would this arena become a somewhat more peaceful
>place but also his credibility among all observers might go up a few points.
>Here endeth the brief sermon on rhetorical fire.

Some minor points.  Pro primo, so far I haven't found any hopeless fools
among the contributors to this newsgroup.  Consequently, if I have given up
on some of them, it's been for other reasons.  The most common one among
them has been my coming to the conclusion that my argument with X keeps
going around in circles.  As you undoubtedly know, if a situation reappears
three times on a chess board, the game is called a draw; even though my
purpose here is mostly heuristic, rather than eristic, in an analogous
situation I conclude that there is no more knowledge to be gained, and walk
away from the discussion.  Pro secundo, this is indeed a research group;
though most of the time I'll be happy to help a novice with bibliographic
references, I have neither the time nor the inclination to commit myself to
explaining the same elementary points ad nauseam, given that an adequate
explanation can be readily found in a standard reference text.  In other
words, I make an effort to look things up, and expect the same from my
interlocutor.  Pro tertio, I take great relish in *returning* verbal
violence, and enjoy any professional display of malediction (on special
occasions, I also like duelling; alas, it seems much harder to find willing
opponents for that purpose).  I understand that some people find this
practice distasteful; however, this being a putative forum of free
expression, I don't feel obliged to accomodate them.  Moreover, I don't see
why it is any more acceptable for Minsky to put his weight behind sweeping
statements obviously designed to disqualify a whole class of people from
legitimate participation in rational discourse, than it is for me to
respond in kind by pointing out his own lack of significance with respect
to his targets.  Not all of this is mere fun and games; if anyone should
feel like taking a dump on a living or dead philosopher, he must be
prepared for reciprocal movements of those who might feel obligated to the
person in question.  End of this discourse.

>-- 
>Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science
>National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace
>Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511
>Internet:  smoliar@iss.nus.sg


`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


