harnad@mind.UUCP (07/09/87)
In the poll on whether the symbol grounding discussion was useful and
worth continuing there were 24 yea's and 37 nays (with some ambiguous
ones I have tried to classify non-self-servingly), so the nays have it.
As promised, I am posting the results (yea's in part 2 and nays in
part 3) and I will abide by the decision. Perhaps I may be allowed a few
parting reflections:
(1) It is not entirely clear what the motivation of the nays was:
ecological/economic considerations about overuse of the airways or
reluctance to perform the dozen or so keystrokes per week (or to
put in the software filter) that would flush unwanted topic headers.
(2) There were distinct signs of the default option "I can't follow it,
therefore it makes no sense" running through some of the nays (and indeed
some of the discussion itself). This may be a liability of polling as a
method of advancing human inquiry.
(3) Along with several thoughtful replies, there was unfortunately also some
ad hominem abusiveness, both in the poll and in the discussion. This is the
ugly side of electronic networks: unmoderated noise from the tail end of the
gaussian distribution. It will certainly be a serious obstacle to making the
Net the reliable and respectable medium of scholarly communication that I
and (I trust) others are hoping it will evolve into. It may turn out that
moderated groups, despite the bottle-necking they add -- a slight step
backward from the unique potential of electronic nets -- will have
to be the direction this evolution takes.
(4) I continue to be extremely enthusiastic about and committed to
developing the remarkable potential of electronic networks for scholarly
communication and the evolution of ideas. I take the present votes to
indicate that the current Usenet Newsgroups may not be the place to attempt
to start this.
(5) Starting a special-interest Newsgroup every time a topic catches
on does not seem like the optimal solution. It is also unclear whether
even majority lack of interest should prevail over minority interest
when all that seems to be at issue is a keystroke. (Not only is there
software to screen out unwanted topics, but to filter multiple postings
as well. I have been posting to both comp.ai and comp.cog-eng because they
each have a relevant nonoverlapping sub-readership. I subscribe to both; my own
version of "rn" only displays multiple postings once. Secondary
digests like the ailist are another matter, but everyone knows that
half or more of it duplicates comp.ai anyway. The general ecology and economy
of the airwaves, on the other hand, should perhaps be deliberated at a higher
level, by whoever actually pays the piper.)
(6) The current majority status of engineers, computer scientists and
programmers on the Net also seems to be a constraint on the development of
its broader scholarly potential. Although these two disciplines developed the
technology and were the first to use it widely, it's now rather as if
Guttenberg and a legion of linotype operators were largely determining not
just the form but the content of the printed page. The other academic
disciplines need *much* greater representation in the intellectual Newsgroups
(such as those devoted to biology, language, philosophy, music, etc.)
if the Net's scholarly contribution is ever to become serious and lasting; right
now these Newsgroups seem only to be outlets for the intellectual hobbies of the
two predominant disciplines. This may just be a quirk of initial conditions
and a matter of time. I wlll certainly do my best to get the other disciplines
involved in this unique and powerful new medium.
[N.B.: I am of course in no way deprecating the great value or contribution
to knowledge of the two disciplines I mentioned; I just believe that their
incidental monopoly over the electronic networks should be benignly dissolved
as soon as possible by the entry of the other disciplines that have a hand in
the written word, scholarly communication and the advancement of knowledge.
The interdisciplinary field of cognitive science happens to be a microcosm of
this larger problem of temporary disciplinary imbalance on the Net,
and the subfield of artificial intelligence -- though of course legitimately
skewed toward computer science -- seems to be showing some of its effects too,
especially on foundational topics like the symbol grounding problem.]
--
Stevan Harnad (609) - 921 7771
{bellcore, psuvax1, seismo, rutgers, packard} !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet harnad@mind.Princeton.EDUharnad@mind.UUCP (07/09/87)
Only part 1 was meant to be cross-posted. Sorry I forgot to erase the
extra groups in part 2. Those interested in part 3 will find it in
comp.ai or comp.cog-eng.
--
Stevan Harnad (609) - 921 7771
{bellcore, psuvax1, seismo, rutgers, packard} !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet harnad@mind.Princeton.EDUzwicky%tut.cis.ohio-state.edu@osu-eddie.UUCP (07/09/87)
In article <993@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: >(Not only is there >software to screen out unwanted topics, but to filter multiple postings >as well. I have been posting to both comp.ai and comp.cog-eng because they >each have a relevant nonoverlapping sub-readership. I subscribe to both; my own >version of "rn" only displays multiple postings once. Secondary >digests like the ailist are another matter, but everyone knows that >half or more of it duplicates comp.ai anyway. The general ecology and economy >of the airwaves, on the other hand, should perhaps be deliberated at a higher >level, by whoever actually pays the piper.) comp.cog-eng is devoted to cognitive engineering. This is a little-known synonym for "human factors engineering". I subscribe to both, ai for ai, and cog-eng for human factors. Your habit of completely inappropriate cross posting annoys me even though my rn filters them; I see all these postings in cog-eng and get my hopes up. Elizabeth D. Zwicky