AIList-REQUEST@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (AIList Moderator Nick Papadakis) (09/06/88)
From: AIList Moderator Nick Papadakis <AIList-REQUEST@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: AIList@AI.AI.MIT.EDU To: AIList@AI.AI.MIT.EDU Date: Mon, 5 Sep 88 14:18 EDT Subject: Teleology The wise, it is said, never discuss religion or politics in public. This is not to say that they don't think about the issues, or consider them unimportant, but merely that they recognize the frailty of public discussion as a means of obtaining useful results. One should always be suspect of a discussion where the most knowledgeable parties also have the largest axes to grind, where no one invests the time and effort to master the issues unless they have a vested interest in the result. The final product seems to consist of little other than elaborate rationalizations for pre-existing notions. Both 'Science' and 'Religion' are, in my view, guilty of this. So what? The problem with arguing politics or religion is the small likelihood of anyone convincing anyone else of anything. AIList already has enough traffic for any *four* normal lists. The most common reason given by people who unsubscribe is 'just couldn't keep up' or 'low signal-to-noise ratio'. As moderator, I find it difficult to squelch a discussion that so many people obviously find interesting (interesting enough to post their two-cents worth) but it simply is not germane. Perhaps a new list for discussing the 'Philosophy of Science' would find a large readership (Interestingly, the physics list is currently undergoing the same sort of turmoil over the appropriateness of meta-discussion), but it certainly would not find me as moderator. Accordingly, all future postings on this topic that do not take extreme pains to highlight their specific relevance to AI or CogSci will be bit-bucketed without further apology. Sorry ... - nick