Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Minsky's new article
Message-ID: <jqbCzKEKG.Kxp@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <39eaqk$nn9@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu> <gyroCysG7u.8Hs@netcom.com> <1994Nov7.010450.26534@news.media.mit.edu> <CzFoww.8At@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 11:57:51 GMT
Lines: 26
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:22355 comp.ai:25341 comp.robotics:15506

In article <CzFoww.8At@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <1994Nov7.010450.26534@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>>gyro@netcom.com (Scott L. Burson) writes:
>
>>> Whether such articles as Marvin's really have negative consequences
>>> for AI funding I have no idea, but I think it's a valid concern for
>>> Sean to be raising.  > >-- Scott Burson
>>
>>Really, now?  I missed this on the first pass.  We have a name for
>>when a person proposes not to discuss an important subject because it
>>could lead to financial loss. It is called conflict of interest, and
>>in intellectual affairs is considered unethical.
>
>What is this supposed to mean?  That if Sean thinks your article will
>have negative consequences it's unethical for him to say so?

Really, Jeff, you need to work on your reading comprehension.  It isn't
the discussion of negative funding consequences that is unethical, it is
the suggestion that the article shouldn't be published if doing so has
negative funding consequences.  Just as Freeman Dyson's admission that,
while Star Wars was bad science, it was a great source of funding of physics
projects wasn't unethical; it was the submission of the grant requests with
this knowledge that was unethical.
-- 
<J Q B>
