From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!yorku.ca!rreiner Tue Nov 19 11:09:29 EST 1991
Article 1248 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!yorku.ca!rreiner
>From: rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca (Richard Reiner)
Subject: Re: Is semiotics an "informal logic"?
Message-ID: <rreiner.689649195@yorku.ca>
Sender: news@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca (USENET News System)
Organization: York University
References: <L9cwaB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> <91310.142252MORIARTY@NDSUVM1.BITNET> <rreiner.689479216@yorku.ca> <1991Nov8.225437.8880@nuscc.nus.sg>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 01:13:15 GMT

smoliar@hilbert.iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar) writes:

>I remain amazed that the literature in semiotics is still growing.  I
>propose the following blunt assessment of the current state of the art:
>There are two classes of philosophers pursuing the study of symbols.  Those
>who have acquired the skills necessary to use the computer as a symbol
>manipulating tool are doing cognitive science.  Those who have not are
>doing semiotics.

I will be even more blunt: I claim that all the work in semiotics I
have even seen (which is quite a bit) is unmitigated rubbish.  It
begins by asking the wrong questions, and finishes by giving senseless
answers.

I agree with your general sentiment--that folks doing semiotics are
blundering around in the dark due to lack of the tools needed to turn
the lights on--but I don't agree that the only relevant tools are
computational.  A little study of formal semantics would go a long way
towards getting semioticians out of the hole they are digging.

By the way, logicians also study symbols and their meanings, and they
are not cognitive scientists.

Richard


