WAnderson.wbst@XEROX.COM (03/09/86)
Re: Stuart Russell <RUSSELL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>, "Addressing some of Dreyfus' specific points." One problem I have with Mr. Russell's remarks (and also with many other remarks made about Messrs. Dreyfus' comments on AI) is their ad hominem aspects. I think that Mr. Russell raises several worthwhile points, but that his style is not conducive to reasoned discussion. Rather than explaining what Prof. Dreyfus seems to be doing, or not doing, vis-a-vis AI research, it is better simply to criticise the ideas themselves. So, if the model Prof. Dreyfus would use to explain expert behavior is an old one, then simply say so, and give some detailed references to it, and to subsequent critiques of it. Surely this is better than going on about how he behaves, or what he seems to believe about the originality of his own work, etc. Of course, Mr Russell may wish to criticize Prof. Dreyfus' style and personality. If this is the case, then please say so right off. Furthermore, if it seems that Prof. Dreyfus is making ad hominem statements then the only reasonable response is to point that out, and then be done with it. More of the same does not improve the quality of the discussion. Finally a personal note: I have not always kept the counsel I present above; but I am trying more and more to do so. I think it is the only way to make substantial progress in any discussion. Bill Anderson
cross@NRL-CSS.ARPA.UUCP (03/28/87)
Phil Marks' reply to Tetsuo Tomiyama begins: ``Very interesting...that we should get such an opinion from a Japanese'' [the dots are his]. I can think of nothing more offensive in a discussion than using a person's race or national origin to ridicule his position. It is the worst kind of ad hominem argumentation. Chuck Cross