SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM@sri-unix.UUCP (10/07/83)
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM>
[Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]
Subject: Colloquium Oct 11: ZADEH
The title and abstract for the colloquium are as follows:
Reasoning With Commonsense Knowledge
I don't think I've seen flames in response to abstracts before, but I get
so sick of hearing "rich," "conservative," and "evil" used as synonyms.
Commonsense knowledge is exemplified by [...] "The rich are
conservative," [...].
In fact, in the U.S., 81% of people with incomes over $50,000 are
registered Democrats. Only 47% with incomes under $50,000 are. (The
remaining 53% are made up of "independents," &c..) The Democratic
Party gets the majority of its funding from contributions of over
$1000 apiece. The Republican Party is mostly funded by contributions
of $10 and under. (Note: I'd be the last to equate Conservatism and
the Republican Party. I am a Tory and a Democrat. However, more
"commonsense knowledge" suggests that I can use the word "Republican"
in place of "conservative" for the purpose of refuting the equation
of "rich" and "conservative."
Such knowledge forms the basis for most of human reasoning in everyday
situations.
This statement is so true that it is the reason I gave up political writing.
Given the pervasiveness of commonsense reasoning, a question which
begs for answer is: Why is commonsense reasoning a neglected area in
classical logic? [...]
Perhaps because false premeses tend to give rise to false conclusions? Just
what we need--"ignorant systems." (:-)
--ChristopherTREITEL@SUMEX-AIM@sri-unix.UUCP (10/07/83)
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM>
[Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]
Why is logic a neglected area in commonsense reasoning? (to say nothing of
political writing)?
More seriously, or at least more historically, a survey was once taken of
ecological and other pressure groups in England, asking them which had been the
most and least effective methods they had used to convince governmental bodies.
Right at the bottom of the list of "least effective" was Reasoned Argument.
- Richard