No subject

[Clay M Bond]

>From Connectionists-Request at q.cs.cmu.edu Wed Sep  7 02:21:24 1988
>Received: from B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU by Q.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Sep 88 21:06:22 EDT
>Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Sep 88 21:04:48 EDT
>Received: from ATHENA (ATHENA.MIT.EDU.#Internet) by C.CS.CMU.EDU with TCP; Tue 6 Sep 88 21:04:28-EDT
>Received: by ATHENA.MIT.EDU (5.45/4.7) id AA11135; Tue, 6 Sep 88 21:04:19 EDT
>Message-Id: <8809070104.AA11135 at ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
>Date: Tue, 6 Sep 88 21:03:23 edt
>From: Alan Prince <prince at cogito.mit.edu>
>Site: MIT Center for Cognitive Science
>To: connectionists at c.cs.cmu.edu
>Subject: Final Word on Harnad's Final Word
>Status: R
>
>
>``The Eye's Plain Version is a Thing Apart''
>
>Whatever the intricacies of the other substantive issues that
>Harnad deals with in such detail, for him the central question
>must always be: "whether Pinker & Prince's article was to be taken 
>as a critique of the connectionist approach in principle, or just of
>the Rumelhart & McClelland 1986 model in particular" (Harnad 1988c, cf.
>1988a,b).
>
>At this we are mildly abashed:   we don't understand the continuing
>insistence on exclusive "or".  It is no mystery that our paper
>is a detailed analysis of one empirical model of a corner (of a
>corner) of linguistic capacity; nor is it obscure that from time
>to time, when warranted, we draw broader conclusions (as in section 8).  
>Aside from the 'ambiguities' arising from Harnad's humpty-dumpty-ish
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>appropriation of words like 'learning', we find that the two modes
>of reasoning coexist in comfort and symbiosis.  Harnad apparently
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>wants us to pledge allegiance to one side (or the other) of a phony
>disjunction.  May we politely refuse?
>
>S. Pinker
>A. Prince

It certainly says a great deal about the MITniks that when confronted
with a valid criticism of their assumptions which they cannot defend
they resort to smugness and condescension.  No one has to comment on
their maturity or status as scientists; they say more by their nastiness
than anyone else could.

I requested to be included on this mailing list because I am a cognitive
scientist and am currently involved in connectionist research.  Intel-
ligent, scientific discussion is productive for all.  Childish trash such
as Pinker and Prince's response above is not welcome in my mail queue.

If you have nothing of substance to say, then please don't presume that 
my time can be wasted.  Send such pre-adult filth to alt.flame, P and P.
And if you don't have the basic intelligence to perceive a very important
and obvious disjunction of issues, then you certainly have no business with
BAs, much less PhDs.

Sincerely,

C. Bond

Flames to: /dev/null