msellers@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Sellers) (01/19/88)
In article <4215@utai.UUCP>, tjhorton@utai.UUCP (Timothy J. Horton) writes: > 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 tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet) 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
spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) (01/20/88)
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.
--
Gene Spafford
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spafsubraman@udel.EDU (Baskaran Subramaniam) (01/20/88)
In article <1988Jan18.190755.220@mntgfx.mentor.com> msellers@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Sellers) writes: > >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? > Here is my vote for the creation of cog.sci group. Baskaran Subramaniam.
webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (01/20/88)
In article <2990@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes: > 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 (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
zwicky@ptero.cis.ohio-state.edu (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) (01/21/88)
In article <2990@arthur.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@uther.cs.purdue.edu.UUCP (Gene Spafford) writes: >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? >Gene Spafford 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
fordjm@byuvax.bitnet (01/21/88)
Here's my vote for the creation of comp.cog-sci as a separate group. The users of comp.cog-eng occasionally make it plain that this is a *human factors* group and this somewhat limits the topics discussed there. There are several cases, such as the unwillingness of many comp.ai people to permit discussion of symbol grounding last fall, which indicate that such a group would fill an important need. I agree that sci.psychology might be too broad. I aalso think that something like sci.cognition or even sci.cogsci might make the distinction we seem to want more clear. I think it is best not to make the group another comp.-- group, but to set it off from that field the same way that sci.lang is. Comments? John M. Ford fordjm@byuvax.bitnet "The main problem with computer scientists is your inability of being able to express yourselves." --a BYU comoputer scientist
rapaport@sunybcs.uucp (William J. Rapaport) (01/21/88)
In article <2990@arthur.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@uther.cs.purdue.edu.UUCP (Gene Spafford) writes: >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? 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: rapaport@cs.buffalo.edu SUNY Buffalo ||bitnet: rapaport@sunybcs.bitnet Buffalo, NY 14260 ||uucp: {ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!rapaport (716) 636-3193, 3180 ||
msellers@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Sellers) (01/21/88)
In article <2990@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes: > 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. > -- > 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. 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
subraman@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Ramesh Subramanian) (01/22/88)
Here's my vote for the creation of a Cognitive Science newsgroup.
******************************************************************************
Ramesh Subramanian
Email (UUCP): ...!rutgers!andromeda!subraman
Voice : (201) 565-9290
USmail: 101 Bleeker St. Box#85
Newark, NJ 07102.
******************************************************************************joglekar@riacs.edu (Umesh D. Joglekar) (01/23/88)
.... 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: joglekar@riacs.edu MS 230-5, NASA Ames Research Center, UUCP: ..ames!riacs!joglekar Moffett Field, Ca 94305 (415) 694-6921
joglekar@riacs.edu (Umesh D. Joglekar) (01/23/88)
In article <716@hydra.riacs.edu> joglekar@hydra.riacs.edu.UUCP (Umesh D. Joglekar) writes: > > .... 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 -- =================================================================================== Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science ARPA: joglekar@riacs.edu MS 230-5, NASA Ames Research Center, UUCP: ..ames!riacs!joglekar Moffett Field, Ca 94305 (415) 694-6921