Ed Porter wrote:
Richard,
It is not clear how valuable your 25 years of hard won learning is if
it causes you to dismiss valuable scientific work that seems to have
eclipsed the importance of anything I or you have published as
"trivial exercises in public relations" without giving any reason
whatsoever for the particular dismissal.
I welcome criticism in this forum provided it is well reasoned and
without venom. But to dismiss a list of examples I give to support
an argument as "trivial exercises in public relations" without any
justification other than the fact that in general a certain numbers
of published papers are inaccurate and/or overblown, is every bit as
dishonest as calling someone a liar with regard to a particular
statement based on nothing more than the knowledge some people are
liars.
In my past exchanges with you, sometimes your responses have been
helpful. But I have noticed that although you are very quick to
question me (and others), if I question you, rather than respond
directly to my arguments you often don't respond to them at all --
such as your recent refusal to justify your allegation that my whole
framework, presumably for understanding AGI, was wrong (a pretty
insulting statement which should not be flung around without some
justification). Or if you do respond to challenges, you often
dismiss them as invalid without any substantial evidence, or you
substantially change the subject, such as by focusing on one small
part of my argument that I have not yet fully supported, while
refusing to acknowledge the major support I have shown for the major
thrust of my argument.
When you argue like that there really is no purpose in continuing the
conversation. What's the point. Under those circumstance your not
dealing with someone who is likely to tell you anything of worth.
Rather you are only likely to hear lame defensive arguments from
somebody who is either incapable of properly defending or unwilling
to properly defend their arguments, and, thus, is unlikely to
communicate anything of value in the exchange.
Your 25 years of experience doesn't mean squat about how much you
truly understand AGI unless you are capable of being more
intellectually honest, both with yourself and with others -- and
unless you are capable of actually reasonably defending your
understandings, head-on, against reasoned questioning and countering
evidence. To dismiss counter evidence cited against your arguments
as "trivial exercises in public relations" without any specific
justification is not a reasonable defense, and the fact that you so
often result to such intellectually dishonest tactics to defend your
stated understandings relating to AGI really does call into question
the quality of those understandings.
In summary, don't go around attacking other people's statements
unless you are willing to defend those attacks in an intellectually
honest manner.
I confess, I would rather that I had not so quickly dismissed those
researchers you mentioned - mostly because my motivation at the time was
to dismiss the exaggerated value that *you* placed on these results.
But let me explain the reason why I still feel that it was valid to
dismiss them.
They are examples of a category of research that addresses issues that
are completely compromised by the lack of solutions to other issues.
Thus: building a NL parser, no matter how good it is, is of no use
whatsoever unless it can be shown to emerge from (or at least fit with)
a learning mechanism that allows the system itself to generate its own
understanding (or, at least, acquisition) of grammar IN THE CONTEXT OF A
MECHANISM THAT ALSO ACCOMPLISHES REAL UNDERSTANDING. When that larger
issue is dealt with, a NL parser will arise naturally, and any previous
work on non-developmental, hand-built parsers will be completely
discarded. You were trumpeting the importance of work that I know will
be thrown away later, and in the mean time will be of no help in
resolving the important issues.
Now, I am harsh about these researchers not because they in particular
were irresponsible, but because they are part of a tradition in which
everyone is looking for cheap results that superficially appear good to
peer reviewers, so they can get things published, so they can get more
research grants, so they can get higher salaries. There is an
appallingly high incidence of research that is carried out because it
fits the ideal paper-publication template, not because the work itself
addresses important issues. This is a kind of low-level academic
corruption, and I will continue to call it what it is, even if you don't
have the slightest idea that this corruption exists.
It was towards *that* issue that my criticism was directed.
I would have been perfectly happy to explain this to you before, but
instead of appreciating where I was coming from, you launched into a
tirade about my dishonesty and stupidity in rejecting papers that (you
mistakenly claim) are better than anything that you or I have written.
And I would also have been happy to explain all this except that my
previous experience has been that it will go straight over you head.
Sorry to be so blunt about it, but you force me to say this.
Ed, you must understand that I am always ready to engage in discussion,
but on this occasion, as on a couple of previous occasions, I have found
that when I tried to explain a point to you, what I got back was a
complete lack of understanding of the issues, coupled with a strident
insistence that *I* am the one who does not understand what he is
talking about ... and as if that was not bad enough, you throw in these
patronizing requests that I open my mind to new possibilities.
Richard Loosemore
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=72128056-be7c34
