Mentioning Phil phD's

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger

which is that an infinite number of theories will fit the observable facts - the basis of all good pragmatist philosophies of science

That's a great big "duh" for the same reason that I can draw an infinite number of curves through any set of points.

Not really - it means that conceptual innovation has a greater role in science than people often think. Hence my claim about Democritus is not as crazy as some of you thought it to be.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger
The odd thing is how simple most good theories tend to be. The more complicated you make them the more points they have to go wrong on...

Yes, but Popper argued just the opposite - that the more ways a theory can go wrong, the better a theory it is (that is - if it has lasted without going wrong for some considerable time, we can be sure that it reflects the nature of things better) - I don't agree because I'm a Quinean, but there you go.

Goodnight.

[KrazyHorse]

You misunderstand me...

Simple theories with large predictive powers are to be favoured, not theories with limited ranges...

But this is just because you need a whole other theory to deal with the range excluded by the first theory, making it a complicated theory...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Sounds a lot like philosophy, in that the subject covers heaps of different areas.

I'd gather most departments in university are like that. It's the entire reason CS splintered away from being a sub-division of the Math department in my school in the late 70s.

BTW - there is a mod that provides a 3D UI for OS X (it sucks though).

There have been cheap hacks like that for lots of OSes for years now, most of them do suck.

The first real 3D UI for consumers in an OS will come with Windows Longhorn in 2005, along with a radically different database-based file system. MS researched both at Cambridge (UK), MIT (US), Waterloo(Canada), and some Chinese university I forget the name of.

What do you make of the "fuzzy logic" thing that was in vogue some years back?

That's not my field, so I'm not too familiar with it. I do know it was overhyped, and is still being refined, but is used in many modern-day devices like air conditioners and climate control in vehicles.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger
You misunderstand me...

Simple theories with large predictive powers are to be favoured, not theories with limited ranges...

But this is just because you need a whole other theory to deal with the range excluded by the first theory, making it a complicated theory...

Being a semantic holist I tend to use "theory" to describe our entire belief structure, if that helps get my point across.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

I'd gather most departments in university are like that. It's the entire reason CS splintered away from being a sub-division of the Math department in my school in the late 70s.

All the good ones are like that. The dull departments like sociology tend to stick together - misery loving company and all that.

Goodnight for good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It was in part because, in the absence of other arguments, the notion that it has been useful in the past is a good pointer to it being useful in the future. The problem with trying to point out contemporary philosophy which has had some effect on society is that philosophical revolutions tend to seep very slowly into the public conciousness. We are still, to a certain extent, playing out some of the changes inaugurated by the age of reason, by philosophers like Rousseau and Kant.

Very well said!

We haven't even spoken about 'modern' political philosophers that much either (such as von Hayek, M.L. King, etc).

[Agathon]

Here's one for Asher. From Thagard's "Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science" (and I even chose a Canadian Cog Scientist!).

"With a few 3exceptions philosopher generally do not perform systematic empirical observations or construct computational models. But philosophy remains important to cognitive science because it deals with fundamtental topics that underlie the experimental and computational approaches to mind. Abstract issues such as the nature of representation and computation need not be addressed in the everyday practice of psychology or AI, but they inevitably arise when researchers think deeply about what they are doing. Philosophy also deals with general issues such as the relation of mind and body and with methodological issues such as the nature of explanations found in cognitive science. In addition to descriptive questions about how people do think, philosophy concerns itself with normative questions about how they should think. Along with the theoretical goal of understanding human thinking, cognitive science can have the practical goal of improving it, which requires normative reflection on what we want thinking to be. Philosohy of Mind does not have a distinct method, but should share with the best theoretical work in other fields a concern with empirical results." p. 9-10

Case closed, I think.

[Japher]

"Great, you've penpointed it. Step two is washing it off"

Nice quote you got there.

In my opinion the author is pretty good at covering his A$$ with lines like:

With a few exceptions philosopher generally

That really doesn't say a whole lot. "They ussually don't but sometimes the do, maybe." Ooooh.

Philosohy of Mind does not have a distinct method, but should share with the best theoretical work in other fields a concern with empirical results."

Thus, stating that philosophy should not be an entity on to its own.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
"With a few 3exceptions philosopher generally do not perform systematic empirical observations or construct computational models. But philosophy remains important to cognitive science because it deals with fundamtental topics that underlie the experimental and computational approaches to mind. Abstract issues such as the nature of representation and computation need not be addressed in the everyday practice of psychology or AI, but they inevitably arise when researchers think deeply about what they are doing.

I would disagree with this, none of the people studying AI have ever consulted or worked with a philosopher...
Of course there was a brief article in the school paper last year about some Philosopher saying it's morally wrong to try to produce an AI as effective as a human...

In addition to descriptive questions about how people do think, philosophy concerns itself with normative questions about how they should think. Along with the theoretical goal of understanding human thinking, cognitive science can have the practical goal of improving it, which requires normative reflection on what we want thinking to be. Philosohy of Mind does not have a distinct method, but should share with the best theoretical work in other fields a concern with empirical results." p. 9-10

It's still painfully unclear what, exactly, philosophers would do with AI. Basically, what it comes down to is they assist in analyzing how people think? But that's what the psychologists do, are all philosophers psychologists?

My problem with this kind of thing is philosophers seem to like to take a "general enlightened man that can help you out" approach to the sciences.

The excerpt you've quoted doesn't tell me what philosophers do, rather it has a lot of words with little content (social sciences are like that, I suppose ).

Does he go on to describe what, exactly, philosophers do with AI? From the people I've spoken to researching it, there is quite a bit of collaboration with psychologists at times, but all of the major AI algorithms and techniques I know are credited to either psychologists or computer scientists.

[Ben Kenobi]

(4) Peter Singer's book "Animal Liberation" (which I detest) - the bible of the animal rights movement.

Agreed Agathon.

I wonder sometimes how this man keeps a job in the US. Do his employers understand what he preaches?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Japher

That really doesn't say a whole lot. "They ussually don't but sometimes the do, maybe." Ooooh.

Don't be petty, read the rest of the book if you want to find out more. This is from the introductory chapter.

Thus, stating that philosophy should not be an entity on to its own.

And nor should science if the quote is to be believed.

I really expected a more constructive reply than this from you, Japher.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher


I would disagree with this, none of the people studying AI have ever consulted or worked with a philosopher...

Plain wrong. I know a philosopher who does AI because the results may help clear up some questions in the philosophy of Mind. This is a book about cognitive science.

It's still painfully unclear what, exactly, philosophers would do with AI. Basically, what it comes down to is they assist in analyzing how people think? But that's what the psychologists do, are all philosophers psychologists?

No. I suggest you have a quick look at Thagard's book before making such pronouncements.

My problem with this kind of thing is philosophers seem to like to take a "general enlightened man that can help you out" approach to the sciences.

I imagine some do, but not the serious ones.

The excerpt you've quoted doesn't tell me what philosophers do, rather it has a lot of words with little content (social sciences are like that, I suppose ).

This isn't the work of a social scientist, but a cognitive scientist. You really ought to do some research before you commit such howlers.

http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Biographies/pault.html

Does he go on to describe what, exactly, philosophers do with AI? From the people I've spoken to researching it, there is quite a bit of collaboration with psychologists at times, but all of the major AI algorithms and techniques I know are credited to either psychologists or computer scientists.

Yes, but the application of such discoveries to the study of the nature of mind is largely done in cognitive science, which is constituted in part by philosophy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Agreed Agathon.

I wonder sometimes how this man keeps a job in the US. Do his employers understand what he preaches?

I don't care so much about his conclusions than the standard of his arguments, which are born of a sort of gutter utilitarianism. He distracts attention from serious philosophy.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Plain wrong. I know a philosopher who does AI because the results may help clear up some questions in the philosophy of Mind. This is a book about cognitive science.

If you know a philosopher who does AI, why do you dance around and avoid the question when I ask, specifically, what they do?

No. I suggest you have a quick look at Thagard's book before making such pronouncements.

This isn't the work of a social scientist, but a cognitive scientist. You really ought to do some research before you commit such howlers.

I'm trying to do research, I'm asking a philosophy professor who knows people doing AI, and for some reason you can't give me a straight answer.

You should know that I don't care enough to go around reading some bull****ty book because you recommend it.

Yes, but the application of such discoveries to the study of the nature of mind is largely done in cognitive science, which is constituted in part by philosophy.

Key word being in part, key pieces of information missing being what, exactly, they do...

I've got the mental image of one of those annoying guys at work who hover over your shoulder when you're doing something useful, gives you the occasional big grin and a thumbs up, then says he helped in part...

I did notice that the guy's bio you linked to is a compsci graduate as well, though.