From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!news!noc.near.net!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken Tue Nov 19 11:09:02 EST 1991
Article 1200 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:870 comp.ai.philosophy:1200
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!news!noc.near.net!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is there any such thing as informal logic?
Message-ID: <38762@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 5 Nov 91 15:48:00 GMT
References: <JMC.91Nov3151101@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <1991Nov4.001344.5044@husc3.harvard.edu> <JMC.91Nov3225619@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.tech
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 17

In article <JMC.91Nov3225619@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Since the remaining points of the argument are either terminological
>or concern the prospects of the logicist approach to AI, there is
>no point in continuing unless Zeleny or Yodaiken would like to offer
>some arguments against the prospects of AI in general or the logicist
>approach in particular.

"But logic is a science of thought and argument, not merely a science of
truth-preserving inferences" -- From the Handbook of AI, page 115 volume 3
                                Cohen and Fiegenbaum

Prof. McCarthy and his associates are welcome to work outside of the
boundaries of "mere" truth-preserving inferences if they so choose.
May I suggest the formal system containing the axiom "1=0" as a starting
place? In this system, all sorts of problems far beyond the scope of dull
and restrictive traditional logics and mathematical methods can be solved
with ease. 


