time for sci.psych???
Timothy J. Horton
>It's been at least three or four years since I last saw an attempt to
>create a newsgroup devoted to psychology.
Has anyone else had difficulties sending mail to todd? I certainly have.
If it's not sort of cognitive science he's trying to bundle together, it'll
attract all kinds of stuff about affect, and sociological adjustment, and
Rogers and Freud ... perhaps not particularly focussed, with too much potential
for floundering in philosophy. There may be enough newsgroups swamped with
such discussions already, and sci.psychology might turn out to be the next
verbal battleground without referees.
I'm hoping, eventually, for a sci.cognitive or comp.cog.sci somewhere,
somewhen, somehow. Apparently, a lot of people were upset about misuse of
comp.cog-eng, since it's supposed to be about cognitive factors engineering,
(ie. human factors topics), but people have continued to "misuse" it again.
Considering the kinds of material mentioned, should such a newsgroup have
"cognitive" somewhere in the title? (ie. "cog")]
A separate vote for sci.cog-sci?
--
Timothy J Horton (416) 979-3109 tjho...@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
Dept of Computer Science tjho...@ai.toronto (other Bitnet)
University of Toronto, tjho...@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400)
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!tjhorton
gil...@hci.uucp
>... perhaps not particularly focussed, with too much potential for floundering
What follows is a response to this, perhaps secondary, polemic. I'm
changing the subject a little to take the opportunity to argue against
the scientist's and technical type's tendency to use "philosopy" as a
pejorative. My apologies to Timothy if I appear to have jumped on a
trivial aside in his posting.
A lack of focus is always annoying, but it disturbs me to see a need
for 'referees' to put an end to 'floundering in philosophy'. I can't
help thinking that many of the so-called scientific community would be
better off playing dogma and priests. Far from replacing superstition,
the scientific community have a habit of perpetuating it. The
danger/sterility of rigorous conceptual analysis is one common
superstition of science - empirical experiment is favoured as more
revealing. The need for authority in superficially automatable method
is another sign of superstitious alienation of truth criteria from Man
to Methods. Were it not for the philosophy and sociology of science,
much of this would go unsaid. Were it not for the social and cultural
marginality of many scientists/techies, less of this would go unbelieved.
To take psychology as an example, a conservative assertion of the
intrinsic value of experimental ritual is about the only assertion ever
thrown back at humanist psychology's revelation of the shakey
assumptions underlying many laboratory paradigms. It is always
refreshing when workers within an experimental paradigm make any
assumptions clear (see many of the contributions in "Interfacing
Thought", Ed. J. Carroll, MIT Press, 1987). This authenticity makes it
easier to respond positively to their work.
People who flounder hopelessly are probably short on their
philosophical training. Please don't use 'philosophy' to mean
'incompetent rambling'. Sadly, 'philosophical' is becoming a
pejorative as the cookbook uncultured approach of technical education
(sorry, training) takes hold of more academics. Computers may be
difficult to use, but so is the technology of writing and the art of
concept invention and application. Technical disciplines procede on
the assumption that neither language nor the concepts underlying it are
problematic, indeed technical rednecks can get irritated and even
abusive at the first sign of conceptual analysis. Ironically, some
scurry off home to eat mounds of uncivilised pseudo-philosophy,
sociology and psychology cooked into a filling of science-fiction. What
sort of a person is it who can't take these things raw?
Now what is it that scientist/technical types know that those with an
arts training do not? Critical analysis, which lies at the heart of
the liberal arts, is regarded as superfluous, unnecessary and a waste
of time. Yet the form and substance of the arguments marshalled
against it by scientific and technical types suggest an inferiority
complex rather than a rigorously established view of the world. They
are value laden ("waste of time", "floundering", "verbal diarrhoea"),
unscientific in their lack of falsifiability criteria and naively
utopian in the unattainable standards they imply (being able to say
EXACTLY what someone should do/think in a given situation - impossible
even for crossing the road!, cf. AI, robotics).
I suggest you read Russell's "Problems of Philosophy" as an antidote to
any feelings that philosophy is bound to flounder. You should find
this a well-written introduction to philosophical analysis. The
introduction to P. Hirst and R. Peters "Logic of the Curriculum" also
makes clear the goals of much applied philosophical analysis. Finally,
pass an example of your work on to a philosopher and have it checked
out for hidden assumptions (without which much scientific ritual won't
work).
As for referees, won't your own judgement suffice?
Mike Sellers
> I'm hoping, eventually, for a sci.cognitive or comp.cog.sci somewhere,
> somewhen, somehow. Apparently, a lot of people were upset about misuse of
> comp.cog-eng, since it's supposed to be about cognitive factors engineering,
> (ie. human factors topics), but people have continued to "misuse" it again.
> Considering the kinds of material mentioned, should such a newsgroup have
> "cognitive" somewhere in the title? (ie. "cog")]
>
> A separate vote for sci.cog-sci?
>
Yes, definitely. This subject is gaining in popularity, though many of the
sub-groups of people involved (computer scientists, psychologists,
neurologists, anthropologists, linguists, etc.) only know their area and
don't seem to know much about what the others are doing or thinking. This
field is in such a state of flux that it is difficult to keep up with much
of what is going on. A forum for discussion of issues, ideas, theories,
questions, research, and happenings related to Cognitive Science would be
a welcome and useful addition to the net (sorry, I can't moderate a group
or list, however :-7 ). Any other votes?
--
Mike Sellers ...!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!msellers
Mentor Graphics Corp., Electronic Packaging and Analysis Division
"The goal of AI is to take the meaningful and make it meaningless."
-- An AI prof, referring to LISP
Gene Spafford
Why don't you use the groups already in existence rather than
ask for a new one?
This is an example of why we want to limit the number of newsgroups:
users don't realize what groups already exist when there are so many.
--
Gene Spafford
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: sp...@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf
Baskaran Subramaniam
>
>of what is going on. A forum for discussion of issues, ideas, theories,
>questions, research, and happenings related to Cognitive Science would be
>a welcome and useful addition to the net (sorry, I can't moderate a group
>or list, however :-7 ). Any other votes?
>
Baskaran Subramaniam.
Timothy J. Horton
>In article <42...@utai.UUCP> tjho...@ai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes:
>>... perhaps not particularly focussed, with too much potential for floundering
>
>What follows is a response to this, perhaps secondary, polemic.
>...People who flounder hopelessly are probably short on their
>philosophical training.
Not true. See note below on Russell. Realize, also, that there are
conceptual chasms between fields. From my experience, in 2 graduate
courses in the philosophical issues of cognitive science, these chasms
are are both apparent and very pronounced. Discussions can lock onto
rather comical issues.
Philosophical arguments about computational models of intelligence, for
instance, among those without comprehensive conceptual bases in computer
science, often seem to reduce to expressions of superstition and ignorance,
at least among the vocal. The intuitions aren't there. The discussions
do worse than flounder. On the other hand, I have great respect for the
philosohical underpinnings of our models of mind. (Kuhn, Burke, Hacking,
Descartes, Pylyshyn, Fodor, Smith, Searle, Vygotsky, Chomsky, Polanyi ...
these are authors on the bookshelf in front of me, for the very reason
that I respect the fundamental questions beneath experiment and math).
>Please don't use 'philosophy' to mean 'incompetent rambling'. Sadly,
>'philosophical' is becoming a pejorative as the cookbook uncultured approach
>of technical education (sorry, training) takes hold of more academics...
I agree.
>I suggest you read Russell's "Problems of Philosophy" as an antidote to
>any feelings that philosophy is bound to flounder...
I suggest, in balance, Russell's "The Cult of Common Usage," for instance.
It describes his fundamental displeasure with certain kinds of philosophy,
specifically those that do not reach beyond a level of linguistic analysis.
>As for referees, won't your own judgement suffice?
Experience would seem to indicate that a few vocal individuals may press
their arguments on the entire network, rather than delivering ambivalent
analysis or investigating before disseminating. I see every reason to
describe, precis, and analyze works of common interest. But that's not
what has happened in many newsgroups bordering on philosophy. Advocacy
is too easy to slip into. There are better methods for enlightenment.
If we are to create a newsgroup, it might provide the means to filter
out non-essential ingredients like advocacy, that seem to drive some
of the less valuable newsgroups around.
--
Timothy J Horton (416) 979-3109 tjho...@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
Dept of Computer Science tjho...@ai.utoronto (other Bitnet)
Webber
> There is already a "comp.cog-eng" for cognitive science and engineering.
> Why don't you use the groups already in existence rather than
> ask for a new one?
>
> This is an example of why we want to limit the number of newsgroups:
> users don't realize what groups already exist when there are so many.
Not a very good example. The message 4215@utai to which you refer indicates
that the readers of comp.cog-eng have already rejected the conversation
that the new news group wishes to collect. Perhaps a better description
of the group is in order, since apparently they view themselves as human
factors people in a narrower sense than you read the name. What this really
indicates is that news groups are more clubs than library categories
and, in general, take greatly varying views of their own scope. Of
course, this is hard to keep track of from a one line description that
is seldom consulted by the actual group members. Indeed, in many groups,
there is not even much consensus on just what they are there for (resulting
in random flammage on such things as the degree of technical training
expected of a poster to a technical group).
--- BOB (web...@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
Elizabeth D. Zwicky
>There is already a "comp.cog-eng" for cognitive science and engineering.
>Why don't you use the groups already in existence rather than
>ask for a new one?
Umm - you might want to check again. comp.cog-eng is *NOT* a cognitive
science group, but a human factors group, cognitive engineering being
another term for human factors.
People make that mistake a lot; probably don't deal with Library
of Congress headings much.
Elizabeth
William J. Rapaport
>Why don't you use the groups already in existence rather than
>ask for a new one?
Although many articles about cog SCIENCE do appear on comp.cog-eng, for
want of a better place, and although there is SOME overlap (witness Don
Norman's work, e.g.), nevertheless cog SCIENCE <> cog ENGINEERING.
William J. Rapaport
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Computer Science||internet: rapa...@cs.buffalo.edu
SUNY Buffalo ||bitnet: rapa...@sunybcs.bitnet
Buffalo, NY 14260 ||uucp: {ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!rapaport
(716) 636-3193, 3180 ||
Mike Sellers
> Why don't you use the groups already in existence rather than
> ask for a new one?
>
> This is an example of why we want to limit the number of newsgroups:
> users don't realize what groups already exist when there are so many.
> --
> Gene Spafford
Sorry Gene, but in this case I realize quite well what groups exist that
might be a good home for cognitive science discussions. Comp.cog-eng is
described as being the home for discussions on "cognitive engineering",
which many people take to be the same as "human factors" or ergonomics.
This is very different from the broad-based synthetic discussions that
tend to occur when "cognitive science" is the topic.
Comp.ai and comp.cog-eng have both been used to some degree in the past for
cognitive science discussions. In both cases someone almost always posts
or e-mails a message requesting that the cognitive science folks please stop
diluting the discussion. Thus the call for a separate group.
I would like a newsgroup where discussions regarding cognitive science could
be fostered; using comp.cog-eng is fine with me, but other people may disagree.
In general, I think a definition of 'cognitive engineering' is drifting away
from ergnomics and toward the operational parts of cognitive science -- more
actions and less theory. This may be a result of cognitive science enfolding
those parts of ergonomics that deal with intelligent HCI into itself; at any
rate, that's my rationale for using comp.cog-eng for this purpose. Though
its a bit like using [mythical] comp.expert-systems for general AI discussions.
Ramesh Subramanian
******************************************************************************
Ramesh Subramanian
Email (UUCP): ...!rutgers!andromeda!subraman
Voice : (201) 565-9290
USmail: 101 Bleeker St. Box#85
Newark, NJ 07102.
******************************************************************************
Robert Weigel
Just another biannual reminder that philosophy is a futile game. It
engages itself in a battle, yet leaves behind the tools needed to win it.
I ask again, who is more foolish? Him that claims to know truth, or he that
scoffs prejudiciously,....yet searches for it!
Donald Thompson
OK Bob - where did you steal that one? Let's try linear thought once
in awhile shall we?
--
"...just give me a ticket to wherever it is."
-Loren Eisley-
Umesh D. Joglekar
.... I for one, miss Steven Harnad's frequent postings.
A cognitive Science Newsgroup would provide an appropriate forum
for such postings which were voted out from this newsgroup sometime back.
--
===================================================================================
Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science ARPA: jogl...@riacs.edu
MS 230-5, NASA Ames Research Center, UUCP: ..ames!riacs!joglekar
Moffett Field, Ca 94305 (415) 694-6921
Umesh D. Joglekar
>
> .... I for one, miss Steven Harnad's frequent postings.
> A cognitive Science Newsgroup would provide an appropriate forum
> for such postings which were voted out from this newsgroup sometime back.
Oops! I should have edited out everything except comp.ai and comp.cog-eng
from the Newsgroups field. Sorry about that.
Umesh D. Joglekar
Russell Turpin
And thus Mr. Weigel engages in a not very original bit of
philosophy.
Russell
William J. Rapaport
>
Hardly. You might be interested in the following article:
Rapaport, William J., "Unsolvable Problems and Philosophical Progress,"
American Philosophical Quarterly 19 (1982) 289-98.
Varol Akman
In article <26...@calmasd.GE.COM> w...@calmasd.GE.COM (Walter Peterson) writes:
>
>For an excellent explanation as to why philosophy is NOT futile and why
>everyone NEEDS philosophy, see
>
> "Philosophy: Who Needs It" By Ayn Rand
>
I don't much care about Rand but a really good reference is
Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein
Another excellent book by Wittgenstein is Zettel.
Needless to say, Wittgenstein was an extraordinary mathematician too.
These books also show why you shouldn't call every mental activity
philosophy and set a standard (very difficult to reach though).
Mike Sellers
>
> Here is another vote for the creation of comp.cog-sci. I hope cross postings
> will be minimized eventually, too.
>
> --- Venu
I hope this will be one of the last big cross-posts on this subject.
(Pretty soon I'm just going to start lobbing out topical questions...)
This is just a note to be sure everyone understands that a vote for
the creation of comp.cog-sci is *NOT* a vote for the creation of sci.psych
(or any other group) unless the voter specifically and explicitly says
so. These two potential groups are very different.
I haven't been able to keep an accurate count of the votes for comp.cog-sci,
nor do I know to whom these votes should be directed. It seems we may have
enough votes from those that I've seen, but perhaps it would be better to
get on with topical postings and let the votes (in the form of such posts)
speak for themselves.
--
Mike Sellers ...!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!msellers
Mentor Graphics Corp., EPAD msel...@mntgfx.MENTOR.COM
Gilbert Cockton
>>...People who flounder hopelessly are probably short on their
>>philosophical training.
>
>
>Philosophical arguments about computational models of intelligence, for
>instance, among those without comprehensive conceptual bases in computer
>science, often seem to reduce to expressions of superstition and ignorance,
>at least among the vocal.
On conceptual chasms, what - philosophical analysis apart - can bridge them?
On ignorance of computability in 'philosophical' arguments on natural
and artificial intelligence, perhaps the Theory of Computation needs
to be as much a part of a proper philosophical training as
linguistic analysis and formal logic. Some people in AI could do with
it as well (i.e. those who don't have it).
As for reduction to superstition, isn't this the outcome for an
analysis of many 'natural truths'. On the existence of objects,
nothing is 'proven', but nevertheless, we find no reason for rejecting
the natural truth of their existence. Arguments based on ignorance
must be discounted, but are we not left with the case that we still
have no reason for rejecting the natural truth that human and machine
intelligence are different? Not only is the case for the equivalence
of human and machine intelligence not proven, no analysis exists, to my
knowledge, which points to a way of establishing the equivalence. This
leaves AI as a piece of very expensive speculation based on beliefs
which insult our higher views of ourselves. Superstition no doubt, but
a dominant and moral superstition which needs to command some respect.
Vocal polemic is as much a reaction to the arrogant unreasonableness of
some major AI pundits, as it is a reflection of the incompetence of the
advocate. The debate has been fair on neither side, and the ability
of AI pundits to stand their ground is due to their social marginality
as round-the-clock scientists and their cultural marginality as workers
outwith a proper discipline (look up Sociology of Deviance). People
who live in bunkers don't get hit by stones ;-) The big AI pundits
just remind me of Skinner.
BTW: NOT(AI pundit = AI worker) - most AI workers know their systems
aren't working (yet?) and do leave their bunkers to mingle :-)
>I suggest, in balance, Russell's "The Cult of Common Usage," for instance.
Great - keep balancing, more competent philosophy for the reading list.
>Experience would seem to indicate that a few vocal individuals may press
>their arguments on the entire network, rather than delivering ambivalent
>analysis or investigating before disseminating.
Sounds like a netiquette proposal which I thoroughly endorse. Whilst
guilty of advocacy on occasions, I think that everyone should strive for
an ambivalent analysis in this sort of public forum, and leave people to make
their own minds up. Sounds like good philosophy to me. However,
ambivalence cannot be expected in response to imcompetence, however candid.
Witness the current debate on economic structure and diachronic syntax. Nor,
as with tolerance of the intolerant, I can't be ambivalent about dogmatists.
--
Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Heriot-Watt University, Chambers St.,
Edinburgh, EH1 1HX. JANET: gil...@uk.ac.hw.hci
ARPA: gilbert%hci.hw...@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ..{backbone}!mcvax!ukc!hci!gilbert
g.l.sicherman
> > In article <2...@chemstor.UUCP>, b...@chemstor.UUCP (Robert Weigel) writes:
>
> For an excellent explanation as to why philosophy is NOT futile and why
> everyone NEEDS philosophy, see "Philosophy: Who Needs It" By Ayn Rand
Would you two please move this discussion out of news.groups,
comp.cog-eng, comp.ai, sci.misc, and sci.research? It belongs in
talk.philosophy.
-:-
BUM: Say, mister, can you spare a dollar?
CRACKERS: I can easily spare the sum you name, but it seems to me
that most beggars would customarily suggest a more modest
amount, such as a nickel.
BUM: I guess they would, at that; but I am ambitious, and mean
to rise in my chosen calling.
--Horatio Alligator, "Admiral Boniface's Parrot"
--
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...!ihnp4!odyssey!gls
Richard A. O'Keefe
but I *think* the protocol is
Someone thinks it would be a good idea to start a new newsgroup.
He posts the suggestion.
After some discussion, it is announced that voting will start.
Votes are MAILED to the proposer. ONLY MAILED VOTES COUNT.
If there are 100 more yes than no votes in a 30-day period,
the proposer creates the newsgroup at his site,
and tells the backbone, sending the voting record.
This is described in some detail in the document "How to Use USENET
Effectively" which I haven't got handy, but your sysadmin should be
able to find you a copy. A package of information about USENET and
how to use it is posted to one of the news.* groups every couple of
months, I forget just which but your sysadmin should know.
What this means is that not one of the votes which have been posted
to this group counts for anything at all. Worse than that, I think
the etiquette is that someone who has posted a vote is disbarred from
mailing a vote that *will* count.
The very best way of creating a newsgroup is to start a mailing list.
You know the sort of thing: one site sets up a mailbox which is
mapped to a list of addresses, and messages sent to that mailbox are
automatically forwarded to all the people who are interested. When
you have enough traffic in the mailing list you (say 100 readers)
that's the time to promote it to a newsgroup.
Suggestions:
(1) Find a copy of "How to Use USENET Effectively" and read it.
(2) Instead of saying how wonderful it would be to have such a
group, someone volunteer to administer a mailing list, and
then everyone who is interested can subscribe and can start
to justify the thing by mailing information instead of votes.
Graham Higgins
feel somewhat isolated here in the U.K., a group discussing cog.sci issues
would be *most* welcome.
Cheers,
Graham Higgins
==============
------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Higgins @ HP Labs | Phone: (0272) 799910 x 24060
Information Systems Centre | gr...@hplb.lp.hp.co.uk
Bristol | gray%hplb...@ukc.ac.uk
U.K. | gjh%otter@hplabs