From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!ogicse!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc Tue Nov 26 12:32:06 EST 1991
Article 1559 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!ogicse!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
>From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is dialectical thought an "informal logic"?
Message-ID: <s90wBB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: 24 Nov 91 15:30:03 GMT
References: <rreiner.690959273@yorku.ca>
Lines: 90

rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca (Richard Reiner) writes:
> Do you believe that your reply amounts to the clear statement of your
> arguments that I invited?
> 
> I suppose in some circles that kind of talk may pass as cogent, but I
> (and I suspect most others here) can't make head or tail of it.  I do
> not think that that is our fault.  If you'd like to try again, here
> are some handy tips that may help.
> 
>     - Do not use terms you do not understand, such as "algorithm",
>     	"model", and perhaps even "formal system".  Use the shortest
>     	and simplest words you can possibly stomach.
>     - Try to answer the question, rather than talking about other things.
>     - Do not use any quotation marks unless you are either quoting
>     	someone or mentioning a term rather than using it.  If you
>     	mean something, say it.  If you mean something else, say that.
>     - Do not ask rhetorical questions; do not make puns; do not try to
>     	make your point through deviant use of punctuation; do not use
>     	terms in unannounced private senses; write in one language at a
>     	time.

What you have offered is a prescription for the Lockean
"plainstyle" of writing, which although itself rhetorical -- it
seems to promise "clarity" or "common sense" or such like virtues
-- believes itself to be "serious" and free of rhetorical devices.
Quotation marks are devices (Derrida calls them "graphemic
gestures") for calling attention to the problematic status of
words ("terms," "tokens," whatever) which _appear_ on the surface
to be clear and "transparent."  There isn't any other way for me
to convey precisely the meaning I want to convey.  If somebody
writing in the plainstyle first uses a term, such as "algorithm"
or "model," in a precise, mathematical sense and then gradually
extends the meaning metaphorically and analogically in small,
quantum-like steps that go unnoticed, by the end of his discourse
you have a tissue of verbal structures masquerading as scientific
exposition.  Isn't it better to discuss imprecise notions in
language which honestly foregrounds its own imprecision?

I do get the impression from this and your previous post that you
are one of those American workers in AI who emphasizes the
"analytical" rather than the "dialectical" aspect of human reason.
Aristotle believed that the analytical was subordinate to the
dialectical, and that the function of "logic" was to prepare
propositions to be input into the dialectical reasoning process.
It would have surprised him to find that his "analytics" had
subsequently been ripped out of its dialectical context and
established as a kind of meta-discipline.

Still, my own professional identity is as a "scientist" rather
than as a "philosopher."  I only want enough theory to do the work
I want to do.  So sooner or later what I do has to fit inside the
CPU of my computer.  Since I'm a practicing clinical psychologist
rather than an academician, I have access to clinical data from
real patients involved in real living situations.  I can do
clinical interventions which will either succeed or fail.  What I
am trying to do explicitly is to use ideas and procedures from AI
to "analyze" or understand the narrative structures in the minds
of my patients and to trace out the ways these narrative
structures contribute to the patient's sense of his own
"identity."  Most of the patients I see are black, inner city boys
who are brought in by their mothers because of difficulties in
school, mostly involving fighting and/or disinterest in
schoolwork.  I think these two issues are related and the macho
self-image of someone who "gets over" on others by a combination
of street smarts and toughness (the qualities which Hobbes called
"deceit" and "brutality," and which he thought were appropriate to
a state of nature in which there was no government) is what ties
them together.  I've found that boys from the age of about 8 or 9
with IQs above 90 can easily deconstruct the popular narratives --
I use episodes from sitcoms like _Charles in Charge_ or _The Fresh
Prince_ -- which seem to valorize those macho qualities.  My
notion is that as they deconstruct these narratives the macho
prescriptions contained in them will become less and less
compelling and the boys will find more flexible strategies for
attaining their goals and maintaining their self-esteem.

So the kind of AI I'm interested in is an explicit discourse and
narrative analysis which will allow me to precisely characterize
the narrative structures and trajectories of these narratives and
the ways in which they might be deconstructed.  That's the hard AI
technology I'm looking for and why I started posting in this
Newsgroup in the first place.  When (and if) I can do the things I
believe I can do, we'll see if the conceptual underpinnings are in
fact "idle" or "tomfoolery."

--
Richard Carlson        |    rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Midtown Medical Center |    {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
Atlanta, Georgia       |
(404) 881-6877         |


