Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,sci.psychology.theory
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!news.er.usgs.gov!jobone!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!newspump.sol.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!tortoise.oise.on.ca!tortoise!dyeo
From: David Yeo <dyeo@tortoise>
Subject: Re: AI's Misconceptions & The Appropriate Role of Psychology? 
In-Reply-To: <855337695snz@longley.demon.co.uk> 
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.970207153455.28852A-100000@tortoise>
Sender: news@oise.on.ca
Nntp-Posting-Host: tortoise
Organization: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto
References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.970206184449.16269B-100000@tortoise> <855325699snz@longley.demon.co.uk>  <Pine.SOL.3.91.970207102226.10079A@tortoise> <855337695snz@longley.demon.co.uk> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:22:45 GMT
Lines: 83
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:51841 comp.ai:44051 sci.psychology.theory:6137

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, David Longley wrote:

> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970207102226.10079A@tortoise>
>            dyeo@tortoise "David Yeo" writes:
> 
> > That is where you delude yourself. For all your pretences to empiricism,
> > your programme merely restates the rationalist ideal "... that reason has
> > precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge or, more strongly, that
> > it is the unique path to knowledge" (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy). 
> 
> Think  about this carefully...... you are quite clearly  IGNORING 
> what has been presented at length, and all because it doesn't fit 
> in with some preconceptioons you have. The whole programme I have 
> been  outlining  is premised on the FAILURE  of  the  rationality 
> assumption  (the fallibility of human reasoning). If it were  not 
> for that, Dennett's "Intentional Stance" would not be in such bad 
> shape.

Where does the rationality assumption enter into anything I said?  It is 
increasingly apparent that you respond to keywords, not concepts.

You advocate a logic-based model of cognition.  I contend that WHAT YOU
HAVE PRESENTED AT LENGTH (ad nausium) indicates that you maintain that
reason takes precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge.  As the
provided dictionary definition shows, this is rationalism (your pretences 
to empiricism notwithstanding). 

<snip>

> 
> > More kindly, your minimisation of the role (and perils) associated with
> > empiricist tenet that "the senses are primary with respect to knowledge" 
> > (ibid) gives the false and even misleading impression that science is the
> > sterile logical manipulation of accepted propositions. 
> 
> You are taking a DICTIOARY definition and misapplying it!

Specifically, in what way am I misapplying it?  These obtuse rebuttals are
hardly the logical form of scientific thought to which you claim to aspire.

> 
> > 
> > To show how rooted in rationalism your programme really is, contrast with
> > the view that induction is the essence of science, and that the deduction
> > merely tests the merits of those inductions. 
> 
> You're just playing with anarchronistic notions which you clearly 
> don't  understand.  Rationalism put great store  by  the  natural 
> powers of human innate intuitive reasoning.

I understand the notions advanced ... I advanced them.  Now show how well 
YOU understand them by refuting what I have said (if you can).

BTW which rationalists "put great store by the natural powers of human
innate intuitive reasoning"?  In fact, is there such a thing as "innate 
intuitive reasoning"? (what empirical evidence is there that it exists) 

> 
> > 
> > > If  you  read it more carefully you will see that I  am  abvocating  a 
> > > system which requires one to analyse data put into a database. 
> > 
> > If YOU read more carefully what *I* (and others) write, you will see that
> > this "analysis" involves more than merely counting events or assigning
> > probability.  I suggest you read (and understand the implications of) the
> > literature on induction and concept formation before responding. 
> 
> Reading  what you and a few others are writing is  like  watching 
> game  show contestants spout out what they THINK are the  correct 
> answers  and then strangely DEMAND that their  incorrect  answers 
> are correct!. 
> 
> Quite frankly, the responses are getting more and more ludicrous.
> Don't presume to already know what I am saying - you might learn
> something!

Given the number of people you claim don't understand you and the volume
you post, you seem to have a serious problem expressing yourself clearly. 
Rather that urging everyone to read, perhaps you should learn to write. 

Cheers,

- David Yeo (Applied Cognitive Science, University of Toronto)
