We all know that no body of theories has yet solved the major AI problems that confront us at this time.
I feel that the discussions about methodologies that may be theoretically sound or reasonable but not proven to be completely effective in application should include discussion about the potential problems that might be associated with them. If there have been some results gathered through testing, then we would all benefit with a discussion of some of the cases where the principles did not work properly. On the other hand, if there have not been enough experimental results from application problems to make insightful criticisms, then the proprietors and enthusiasts should have the intellectual integrity to express some of the reservations they may have had about their theories. This seems like a sensible working principle. That is not to say that an advocate has to accept all possible criticisms as being equal in value. But when an advocate is not able to present or acknowledge any reasonable criticism about his still unsubstantiated theories, it looks like a negative indicator about the generality and efficacy of those theories. I know that we all have to deal with criticisms. But using a critical examination of the theories or criticisms that you are advocating is a step higher than just defending your theories from any criticism. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
