/LMAR=0/XLINE=3/FONT#0=BAXL30/FONT#1=BAXM30/FONT#2=BASB30/FONT#3=SUB/FONT#4=SUP/FONT#5=BASL35/FONT#6=NGR25/FONT#7=MATH25/FONT#8=FIX25



␈↓ α∧␈↓α␈↓ β⊃REPLY TO WEIZENBAUM'S REPLY and CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTThis␈α
is␈α
a␈αresponse␈α
to␈α
Weizenbaum's␈αresponse␈α
to␈α
my␈αdraft␈α
review.␈α
 Weizenbaum's␈αresponse␈α
is
␈↓ α∧␈↓weizen.ans[pub,jmc].␈α The␈αdraft␈αof␈αthe␈αreview␈αwill␈αbe␈αfurther␈αmodified,␈αand␈αthis␈αmay␈αmake␈αsome
␈↓ α∧␈↓of␈αhis␈αpoints␈α
puzzling␈αto␈αthe␈α
new␈αreader.␈α First␈α
I␈αwill␈αrespond␈α
to␈αhis␈αpoints␈α
as␈αhe␈αmakes␈αthem,␈α
and
␈↓ α∧␈↓then I will raise further questions on the issues.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTMy␈α
sentence␈α
"It␈α
also␈α
owes␈α
much␈α
in␈α
rhetorical␈α
style␈α
and␈α
political␈α
presupposition␈α
to␈α
the␈α
new
␈↓ α∧␈↓left"␈α
apparently␈α
means␈α
different␈α
things␈α
to␈α
different␈α
people␈α
and␈α
will␈α
have␈α
to␈α
be␈α
omitted␈α
unless␈αI␈α
can
␈↓ α∧␈↓find␈αa␈αway␈αof␈αputting␈αthe␈αpoint␈αmore␈αclearly␈αand␈αstill␈αconcisely;␈αit␈αis␈αnot␈αcentral.␈α What␈αstruck␈αme
␈↓ α∧␈↓was␈α∃the␈α∃chapter␈α∀title␈α∃"Against␈α∃the␈α∀imperialism␈α∃of␈α∃instrumental␈α∀reason"␈α∃the␈α∃phrase␈α∃(p.␈α∀37)
␈↓ α∧␈↓"imprisons␈αpoor␈αpeople␈αin␈αinner␈αcities...",␈αand␈αfollowing␈αthe␈αphrase␈αabout␈α"science␈α...converted␈αinto
␈↓ α∧␈↓poison"␈α∂on␈α⊂p.␈α∂13␈α⊂by␈α∂an␈α⊂association␈α∂of␈α⊂"logicality"␈α∂with␈α⊂American␈α∂policy␈α⊂in␈α∂Vietnam␈α⊂which␈α∂he
␈↓ α∧␈↓assumes his readers must agree was "murderous".

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTWith␈α∂some␈α∞readers␈α∂the␈α∂above␈α∞explanation␈α∂may␈α∞lose␈α∂me␈α∂credence,␈α∞because␈α∂they␈α∂will␈α∞agree
␈↓ α∧␈↓with␈α
Weizenbaum␈α
about␈α
Vietnam.␈α I␈α
request␈α
such␈α
readers␈α
to␈αmake␈α
their␈α
own␈α
judgment␈αabout␈α
how
␈↓ α∧␈↓relevant␈α
this␈αis␈α
to␈αmy␈α
main␈αcriticisms␈α
of␈αWeizenbaum.␈α
 I␈αput␈α
in␈αthe␈α
point,␈αand␈α
refuse␈αto␈α
drop␈αit,
␈↓ α∧␈↓not␈αin␈αorder␈αto␈αstrengthen␈αmy␈αcase␈αabout␈αthe␈αanti-science␈αtendency␈αof␈αthe␈αbook,␈αbut␈αspecifically␈αto
␈↓ α∧␈↓defend␈α∂the␈α∂Defense␈α∂Department.␈α⊂ I␈α∂think␈α∂the␈α∂country␈α∂has␈α⊂suffered␈α∂much␈α∂and␈α∂will␈α⊂suffer␈α∂more
␈↓ α∧␈↓because of the estrangement of scientists from defense.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTIn␈α⊂the␈α⊂response␈α⊂Weizenbaum␈α⊂says␈α⊂"I␈α⊂would␈α⊂have␈α⊂thought,␈α⊂but␈α⊂for␈α⊂this␈α⊂exhibit,␈α⊃that␈α⊂all
␈↓ α∧␈↓participants␈α⊗in␈α↔scholarly␈α⊗debates␈α↔had␈α⊗by␈α↔now␈α⊗renounced␈α↔argument␈α⊗by␈α↔irrelevant␈α⊗political
␈↓ α∧␈↓association".␈α However,␈αlater␈αin␈αthe␈αresponse,␈αhe␈αdefends␈αreferring␈αto␈αthe␈αDepartment␈αof␈α"Defense"
␈↓ α∧␈↓as␈αmerely␈αpointing␈α
out␈αthat␈αthe␈α
emperor␈αwears␈αno␈α
clothes.␈α However,␈αthe␈α
main␈αway␈αin␈α
which␈αthe
␈↓ α∧␈↓Defense Department is used in the book is in order to criticize ideas by association with it.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTNevertheless,␈α∂whether␈α∂the␈α∂Defense␈α⊂Department␈α∂is␈α∂good␈α∂or␈α∂bad␈α⊂is␈α∂not␈α∂an␈α∂issue␈α⊂on␈α∂which
␈↓ α∧␈↓either␈α⊂of␈α⊂us␈α∂has␈α⊂much␈α⊂new␈α∂to␈α⊂say,␈α⊂and␈α∂if␈α⊂Weizenbaum␈α⊂would␈α∂reformulate␈α⊂his␈α⊂views␈α∂omitting
␈↓ α∧␈↓attacks on it, I would cheerfully omit defending it.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTI␈α⊃think␈α⊃I␈α⊃should␈α∩reformulate␈α⊃my␈α⊃comment␈α⊃about␈α⊃the␈α∩relation␈α⊃of␈α⊃the␈α⊃book␈α∩to␈α⊃academic
␈↓ α∧␈↓politics.␈α⊃ However,␈α∩the␈α⊃computer␈α∩linguists␈α⊃of␈α⊃my␈α∩acquaintance␈α⊃are␈α∩offended␈α⊃by␈α∩the␈α⊃persistent
␈↓ α∧␈↓refusal␈α⊂of␈α⊃the␈α⊂Chomsky␈α⊃school␈α⊂to␈α⊂acknowledge␈α⊃their␈α⊂contributions␈α⊃(they␈α⊂switched␈α⊃emphasis␈α⊂to
␈↓ α∧␈↓semantics␈α⊂before␈α⊂Chomsky␈α⊂did)␈α⊂and␈α⊂to␈α⊂discuss␈α⊂their␈α⊂contentions.␈α⊂ Morris␈α⊂Halle's␈α⊂report␈α⊂to␈α⊂the
␈↓ α∧␈↓M.I.T.␈α
conference␈αon␈α
the␈α
centenary␈αof␈α
the␈αtelephone␈α
confirmed␈α
my␈αimpression␈α
that␈α
the␈αChomsky
␈↓ α∧␈↓school␈αis␈αbehaving␈αarrogantly.␈α Weizenbaum's␈α
acceptance␈αof␈αtheir␈αarrogant␈αdismissal␈α
of␈αcomputer
␈↓ α∧␈↓linguists␈α⊂as␈α⊂hackers␈α⊂in␈α⊂a␈α⊂book␈α⊂in␈α⊂which␈α∂he␈α⊂acknowledges␈α⊂the␈α⊂scientific␈α⊂value␈α⊂of␈α⊂much␈α⊂of␈α∂the
␈↓ α∧␈↓computer␈αlinguists'␈αwork␈αseems␈αobtuse.␈α Moreover,␈αwhether␈αWeizenbaum␈αintends␈αit␈α
specifically␈αor
␈↓ α∧␈↓not,␈αhe␈αis␈αoff-handedly␈αconfirming␈αthe␈αview␈αthat␈αthe␈αM.I.T.␈αLinguistics␈αDepartment␈αneed␈αnot␈α
look
␈↓ α∧␈↓beyond␈αit␈αown␈αfollowers␈αin␈αmaking␈αappointments,␈αand␈αwhen␈αa␈αphysicist␈αas␈αprominent␈αat␈αM.I.T.␈αas
␈↓ α∧␈↓Weisskopf␈α
endorses␈α
the␈α
book,␈α
one␈α
can␈α
see␈α
that␈α
the␈α
book␈α
is␈α
effective,␈α
and␈α
one␈α
can␈α
see␈α
the␈α
usefulness
␈↓ α∧␈↓of␈α∪the␈α∪mutual␈α∪admiration␈α∪society␈α∪incorporating␈α∩Weizenbaum␈α∪and␈α∪Chomsky.␈α∪ (I␈α∪refer␈α∪to␈α∩the
␈↓ α∧␈↓quotations in an ad in current ␈↓↓Scientific␈↓ ␈↓↓American).␈↓

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTI␈α⊗understand␈α⊗his␈α⊗point␈α⊗that␈α⊗because␈α⊗of␈α⊗a␈α⊗difference␈α⊗in␈α⊗experience,␈α⊗computers␈α⊗can't


␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ ε|1␈↓ ∧



␈↓ α∧␈↓understand␈α
humans.␈α
 I␈α
disagree␈α
and␈α
cite␈α
the␈α
counter-example␈α
of␈α
the␈α
deaf-dumb-and-blind␈α
who
␈↓ α∧␈↓overcome␈α
their␈α
handicaps␈αand␈α
develop␈α
world-views␈α
surprisingly␈αsimilar␈α
to␈α
those␈α
of␈αpeople␈α
without
␈↓ α∧␈↓those handicaps.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTWith␈α∞regard␈α∞to␈α∞questions␈α∞of␈α∞"power",␈α
I␈α∞think␈α∞that␈α∞the␈α∞technology␈α∞assessment␈α∞movement␈α
is
␈↓ α∧␈↓wrongly␈α
attempting␈α
to␈α
get␈α
power␈α
of␈α
approval␈α
over␈α
scientific␈α
work␈α
and␈α
that␈α
Weizenbaum␈αis␈α
helping
␈↓ α∧␈↓them.␈α When␈αColby's␈αwork␈αis␈αregarded␈αas␈α
based␈αon␈αan␈αobscenity,␈αthe␈αquestion␈αof␈αhow␈α
to␈αprevent
␈↓ α∧␈↓such␈αwork␈αarises␈αin␈αthe␈αminds␈αof␈αmany␈αpeople␈αand␈αproposals␈αhave␈αbeen␈αmade,␈αe.g.␈αby␈αthe␈α␈↓↓Science
␈↓ α∧␈↓↓for the People␈↓ thugs.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTNow␈αwe␈αhave␈α
a␈αdisagreement␈αabout␈αthe␈α
word␈α"cure".␈α I␈αprefer␈α
not␈αto␈αsay␈α␈↓↓Prefrontal␈α
lobotomy
␈↓ α∧␈↓↓cures␈α∩people␈α∩but␈α∩destroys␈α∩essential␈α∩parts␈α∩of␈α∩their␈α∩personalities␈↓,␈α∩but␈α∩rather␈α∪␈↓↓Prefrontal␈α∩lobotomy
␈↓ α∧␈↓↓doesn't␈αcure␈αpeople,␈αbecause␈αit␈αdestroys␈αessential␈αparts␈αof␈αtheir␈αpersonalities␈↓␈αassuming␈αthis␈αcriticism
␈↓ α∧␈↓of prefrontal lobotomy is correct, which I gather is the present general opinion.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTA␈α⊃similar␈α⊃remark␈α∩applies␈α⊃to␈α⊃the␈α∩use␈α⊃of␈α⊃the␈α∩words␈α⊃"rationality"␈α⊃and␈α∩"logicality".␈α⊃ When
␈↓ α∧␈↓someone,␈α
e.g.␈α
Meadows␈αor␈α
the␈α
Defense␈αDepartment,␈α
puts␈α
what␈α
I␈αconsider␈α
wrong␈α
assumptions␈αinto␈α
a
␈↓ α∧␈↓computer␈α⊃program␈α⊂and␈α⊃comes␈α⊂up␈α⊃with␈α⊃wrong␈α⊂answers,␈α⊃I␈α⊂don't␈α⊃want␈α⊂to␈α⊃criticize␈α⊃rationality␈α⊂or
␈↓ α∧␈↓logicality,␈αbut␈αmerely␈αthe␈αwrong␈αassumptions␈α(which␈αmay␈αbe␈αmerely␈αwrong␈αdata␈αor␈αworse␈αyet␈αbuilt
␈↓ α∧␈↓into the program).

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTI␈α
can't␈α
continue␈α
the␈α
argument␈α
about␈α
whether␈αa␈α
computer␈α
program␈α
could␈α
cure␈α
people␈α
"in␈αa
␈↓ α∧␈↓sufficiently␈αencompassing␈αinterpretation␈αof␈αthat␈αword",␈αbecause␈αthere␈αis␈αno␈αcandidate␈αthat␈αI␈αwould
␈↓ α∧␈↓support.␈α⊃ Moreover,␈α⊃I␈α⊃think␈α∩work␈α⊃on␈α⊃a␈α⊃computer␈α∩psychotherapist␈α⊃is␈α⊃premature␈α⊃until␈α∩a␈α⊃better
␈↓ α∧␈↓understanding␈αof␈αmental␈α
process␈αis␈αachieved.␈α
 However,␈αI␈αtake␈α
it␈αthat␈αWeizenbaum␈α
considers␈αthe
␈↓ α∧␈↓necessary␈αalienness␈αof␈αcomputers␈αsufficiently␈αproved␈αthat␈αall␈αwork␈αaimed␈αat␈αcomputer␈αpsychiatry␈α
is
␈↓ α∧␈↓"obscene" per se.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTWeizenbaum␈α⊃has␈α⊃caught␈α⊂me␈α⊃in␈α⊃a␈α⊂misstatement␈α⊃about␈α⊃science␈α⊂being␈α⊃the␈α⊃main␈α⊃source␈α⊂of
␈↓ α∧␈↓knowledge,␈α
and␈α
his␈α
examples␈α
of␈α∞common␈α
sense␈α
knowledge␈α
demonstrate␈α
it.␈α
 However,␈α∞his␈α
quarrel
␈↓ α∧␈↓with␈α
excessive␈α
claims␈α
for␈α
science␈α
do␈α
not␈α∞consist␈α
in␈α
saying␈α
that␈α
people␈α
wrongly␈α
claim␈α∞that␈α
science
␈↓ α∧␈↓proves␈α
the␈α
paternity␈α∞of␈α
their␈α
children.␈α∞ Let␈α
me␈α
revise␈α∞my␈α
contention␈α
to␈α∞assert␈α
that␈α
science␈α∞is␈α
the
␈↓ α∧␈↓main␈α
reliable␈α
source␈α
of␈α
general␈αknowledge␈α
including␈α
knowledge␈α
about␈α
human␈αbehavior.␈α
 However,
␈↓ α∧␈↓science␈αis␈αregrettably␈αslow,␈αand␈αareas␈αexist␈αin␈αwhich␈αpresent␈αscientific␈αtheories␈αmay␈αbe␈αworse␈αthan
␈↓ α∧␈↓unguided common sense.  Let me admit that I am not satisfied with this formulation.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTWeizenbaum␈α
indeed␈α
has␈α
quotes␈α
that␈αcounter␈α
his␈α
criticism␈α
that␈α
AI␈α
hasn't␈αproduced␈α
industrial
␈↓ α∧␈↓results␈αin␈α20␈αyears.␈α As␈αI␈αremark,␈αmany␈αof␈αhis␈αassertions␈αare␈αcoupled␈αwith␈αcounter-assertions,␈αand
␈↓ α∧␈↓his inconsistency is a major fault.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTMy␈αanalysis␈αof␈αthe␈αimport␈αof␈α"Those␈αwho␈αknow␈αwho␈αand␈αwhat␈αthey␈αare␈αdo␈αnot␈αneed␈αto␈αask
␈↓ α∧␈↓what␈α
they␈αshould␈α
do"␈αis␈α
based␈αon␈α
my␈αencounters␈α
with␈αwould-be␈α
psycho-priests,␈αnot␈α
on␈αassuming
␈↓ α∧␈↓that␈α
Weizenbaum␈α
is␈α
one␈α
of␈α
them.␈α
 On␈α
rereading␈α
its␈α
context,␈α
I␈α
can␈α
see␈α
that␈α∞Weizenbaum␈α
doesn't
␈↓ α∧␈↓intend␈α∃to␈α∃set␈α∃himself␈α∃up␈α∃as␈α∃a␈α∃judge␈α∃of␈α∃whether␈α∃someone␈α∃"knows␈α∃who␈α∃and␈α∃what␈α∃he␈α∃is".
␈↓ α∧␈↓Unfortunately,␈α⊂whenever␈α⊂a␈α⊂vague␈α⊃statement␈α⊂like␈α⊂that␈α⊂is␈α⊃ascribed␈α⊂great␈α⊂importance␈α⊂by␈α⊃a␈α⊂social
␈↓ α∧␈↓group,␈αit␈αacts␈αas␈αan␈αattractant␈αfor␈αwould-be␈αpriests.␈α At␈αleast,␈αI␈αhave␈αseen␈αthis␈αvery␈αquestion␈αused
␈↓ α∧␈↓in␈α∞encounter␈α∞groups␈α∞to␈α∞put␈α
people␈α∞in␈α∞a␈α∞position␈α∞in␈α∞which␈α
every␈α∞answer␈α∞is␈α∞rejected␈α∞as␈α∞trivial␈α
or


␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ ε|2␈↓ ∧



␈↓ α∧␈↓wrong.␈α My␈αfurther␈αopinion␈αis␈αthat␈α"what␈αshould␈αI␈α
do"␈αand␈α"what␈αmay␈αI␈αdo"␈αand␈α"what␈αdo␈αI␈α
want
␈↓ α∧␈↓to␈α
do"␈α
are␈α
more␈α
fruitful␈α
questions␈α
than␈α
"who␈αand␈α
what␈α
am␈α
I?".␈α
 At␈α
least␈α
I␈α
can␈α
understand␈αthese
␈↓ α∧␈↓questions␈α
and␈α∞try␈α
to␈α∞answer␈α
them␈α
for␈α∞myself,␈α
while␈α∞I␈α
can␈α
only␈α∞give␈α
trivial␈α∞answers␈α
to␈α∞the␈α
latter.
␈↓ α∧␈↓(There␈α
is␈α
a␈αpoignant␈α
article␈α
entitled␈α"Trashing:␈α
When␈α
'Sisters'␈αturn␈α
on␈α
you"␈αin␈α
the␈α
April␈α1976␈α
␈↓↓Ms.␈↓
␈↓ α∧␈↓The␈αauthor␈αcomplains␈αthat␈αwomen␈αare␈αunjustly␈αattacked␈αwithin␈αthe␈αwomen's␈αmovement␈αfor␈α"what
␈↓ α∧␈↓they␈α∂are"␈α∞rather␈α∂than␈α∂for␈α∞anything␈α∂they␈α∂have␈α∞done␈α∂and␈α∞that␈α∂it␈α∂is␈α∞impossible␈α∂to␈α∂defend␈α∞oneself
␈↓ α∧␈↓against such an attack.)

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTI␈αdon't␈αclaim␈αto␈αhave␈αproved␈αin␈αmy␈αreview␈αthat␈αMumford,␈αRoszak,␈αEllul␈αor␈αthe␈αnew␈αleft␈αare
␈↓ α∧␈↓wrong,␈α
but␈α∞when␈α
Weizenbaum␈α∞says␈α
without␈α∞supplying␈α
supporting␈α∞argument␈α
"Men␈α∞could␈α
instead
␈↓ α∧␈↓choose␈α⊗to␈α⊗have␈α⊗truly␈α⊗safe␈α⊗automobiles,␈α⊗decent␈α⊗television,␈α⊗decent␈α⊗housing␈α⊗for␈α⊗everyone,␈α⊗or
␈↓ α∧␈↓comfortable,␈α
safe,␈α
and␈α
widely␈α
distributed␈α
mass␈α
transportation",␈α
he␈α
is␈α
making␈α∞presumptions␈α
about
␈↓ α∧␈↓technology,␈α∂economics,␈α∂the␈α⊂definition␈α∂of␈α∂social␈α∂justice,␈α⊂what␈α∂constitutes␈α∂good␈α∂taste,␈α⊂and␈α∂possibly
␈↓ α∧␈↓about␈α↔what␈α_government␈α↔action␈α↔is␈α_legitimate␈α↔in␈α_order␈α↔to␈α↔achieve␈α_social␈α↔goals.␈α_ I␈α↔suspect
␈↓ α∧␈↓Weizenbaum␈αand␈αI␈αcould␈αagree␈αon␈αwhat␈αTV␈αcommercials␈αare␈αoffensive.␈α We␈αmight␈αfind␈αit␈αharder
␈↓ α∧␈↓to␈α
agree␈α
on␈αhow␈α
TV␈α
should␈αbe␈α
financed␈α
or␈αwhether␈α
it␈α
should␈α
be␈αdone␈α
in␈α
a␈αuniform␈α
way.␈α
 I␈αtake␈α
it
␈↓ α∧␈↓back.␈α∞ He␈α∞might␈α∞not␈α∞agree␈α∞with␈α∞me␈α∞in␈α∞finding␈α∞the␈α∞nagging␈α∞self-praise␈α∞of␈α∞the␈α
"non-commercial"
␈↓ α∧␈↓stations even more offensive than commercials for vaginal deodorants.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTLastly,␈αif␈αthere␈αwere␈αa␈αplausible␈αmodel␈αman's␈αbeliefs,␈αI␈αthink␈αthat␈αit␈αwould␈αbe␈αmentioned␈αin
␈↓ α∧␈↓the␈αadmittedly␈αfew␈αsources␈αI␈αhave␈αread,␈αbut␈αI␈αadmit␈αa␈αcertain␈αprobability␈αthat␈αsomeone␈αhas␈αfound
␈↓ α∧␈↓the␈αtruth␈α
in␈αthis␈α
area␈αbut␈α
it␈αhasn't␈α
achieved␈αprominence.␈α
 My␈αown␈α
experience␈αhas␈α
been␈αthat␈αif␈α
one
␈↓ α∧␈↓of␈αmy␈αideas␈αdidn't␈αachieve␈αacceptance␈αin␈αten␈αyears␈αor␈αso,␈αI␈αcould␈αusually␈αfind␈αsomething␈αwrong␈αor
␈↓ α∧␈↓at least grossly incomplete about it.

␈↓ α∧␈↓SOME QUESTIONS

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTIn␈αthe␈αforegoing,␈αI␈αhave␈α
dealt␈αas␈αbest␈αI␈αcan␈αwith␈α
all␈αthe␈αissues␈αraised␈αin␈αWeizenbaum's␈α
reply
␈↓ α∧␈↓to␈α
my␈α
review,␈α∞but␈α
I␈α
think␈α∞he␈α
has␈α
not␈α
dealt␈α∞with␈α
some␈α
important␈α∞questions␈α
raised␈α
in␈α∞the␈α
review.
␈↓ α∧␈↓Indeed␈α
he␈α
hasn't␈αdealt␈α
with␈α
them␈α
seriatim␈αat␈α
all.␈α
 Here␈αare␈α
some␈α
issues␈α
I␈αwould␈α
like␈α
him␈αto␈α
address
␈↓ α∧␈↓specifically:

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT1.␈α
Clarify␈α
the␈α
position␈αwith␈α
respect␈α
to␈α
research␈α
on␈αrecombinant␈α
DNA␈α
expressed␈α
on␈α
p.␈α260.
␈↓ α∧␈↓Since␈α
the␈α
issues␈α
have␈αbeen␈α
much␈α
discussed␈α
in␈αthe␈α
scientific␈α
and␈α
popular␈αpress,␈α
it␈α
would␈α
help␈αto␈α
say
␈↓ α∧␈↓how␈α∞to␈α
apply␈α∞the␈α
principle␈α∞"to␈α
exempt␈α∞life␈α∞itself␈α
from␈α∞the␈α
madness␈α∞of␈α
treating␈α∞everything␈α∞as␈α
an
␈↓ α∧␈↓object".␈α∀ The␈α∀biologists␈α∪were␈α∀apparently␈α∀concerned␈α∀only␈α∪with␈α∀the␈α∀possibility␈α∀that␈α∪something
␈↓ α∧␈↓infectious would escape the laboratory.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT2.␈α∃Do␈α∃the␈α⊗hackers␈α∃Chomsky␈α∃is␈α∃justified␈α⊗in␈α∃ignoring␈α∃inlude␈α∃Winograd␈α⊗and␈α∃Schank?
␈↓ α∧␈↓Compare␈α
the␈αgoals␈α
of␈α
the␈αtwo␈α
groups␈αand␈α
say␈α
why␈αone␈α
line␈αof␈α
research␈α
is␈αacceptable␈α
and␈αthe␈α
other
␈↓ α∧␈↓is "at best ... another example of the drunkard's search". p.200

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT3.␈α
Is␈αthe␈α
mini-theory␈α
about␈αclocks␈α
correct?␈α Don't␈α
the␈α
hackers␈αeat␈α
more␈α
spontaneously␈αthan
␈↓ α∧␈↓people did before clocks were invented?

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT4.␈αWhat␈αis␈αthe␈αthe␈αdefinition␈αof␈αobscenity,␈αand␈αhow␈αcan␈αa␈αpoor␈αAI␈αgraduate␈αstudent␈αbe␈α
sure
␈↓ α∧␈↓he␈α∂won't␈α∂be␈α∂guilty␈α∂of␈α∂it?␈α∂ Perhaps␈α⊂you␈α∂can␈α∂illustrate␈α∂the␈α∂difference␈α∂by␈α∂comparing␈α∂the␈α⊂work␈α∂of
␈↓ α∧␈↓Schank and Chomsky.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ ε|3␈↓ ∧



␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT5. Should present support of research in AI be continued?

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT6.␈α
Explain␈α
the␈α
phrase␈α
"the␈α
dogmatic␈α
coupling␈αof␈α
reason␈α
to␈α
power"␈α
in␈α
your␈α
reply.␈α
 I␈αsimply
␈↓ α∧␈↓don't understand it.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT7.␈α∃Explain␈α∃the␈α⊗import␈α∃of␈α∃the␈α⊗statement␈α∃␈↓↓"Scientists␈α∃who␈α⊗continue␈α∃to␈α∃prattle␈α⊗on␈α∃about
␈↓ α∧␈↓↓'knowledge␈α
for␈α
its␈α
own␈α
sake'␈α
in␈α
order␈α
to␈α
exploit␈α
that␈α
slogan␈α
for␈α
their␈α
self-serving␈α
ends␈α
have␈α
detached
␈↓ α∧␈↓↓science␈αand␈αknowledge␈αfrom␈αany␈αcontact␈αwith␈αthe␈αreal␈αworld".␈↓␈αDon't␈αscientists␈αhave␈αsome␈α
reason␈αto
␈↓ α∧␈↓fear␈α∂what␈α∂may␈α∞come␈α∂of␈α∂Senator␈α∞Kennedy's␈α∂reading␈α∂it?␈α∞ Who␈α∂are␈α∂the␈α∞prattlers␈α∂in␈α∂the␈α∞computer
␈↓ α∧␈↓science field?

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT8.␈αPlease␈αname␈αa␈αcompulsive␈αcomputer␈αprogrammer␈αor␈αtwo.␈α If␈αyou␈αdon't␈αwant␈αto␈αdo␈αso,␈αsay
␈↓ α∧␈↓how␈α∀many␈α∪employees,␈α∀including␈α∪graduate␈α∀students,␈α∪of␈α∀the␈α∪AI␈α∀Lab␈α∪and␈α∀the␈α∀Laboratory␈α∪for
␈↓ α∧␈↓Computer Science are compulsive computer programmers.



































␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ ε|4␈↓ ∧



␈↓ α∧␈↓α␈↓ ¬7CHALLENGE TO A DEBATE

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTI␈αwould␈αlike␈αto␈αget␈αWeizenbaum's␈αand␈αmy␈αpositions␈αon␈αthe␈αmore␈αimportant␈αissues␈αraised␈αin
␈↓ α∧␈↓his␈α
book␈α
better␈α
defined.␈α
 The␈α
present␈α
procedure␈α
of␈α
exchanging␈α
polemics␈α
has␈α
the␈αdisadvantage␈α
that
␈↓ α∧␈↓it␈α∞tends␈α∂to␈α∞concentrate␈α∂on␈α∞the␈α∞areas␈α∂in␈α∞which␈α∂verbal␈α∞slips␈α∞have␈α∂been␈α∞made␈α∂rather␈α∞than␈α∂on␈α∞the
␈↓ α∧␈↓areas in which the positions have been well-formulated.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT␈↓αTherefore, I offer a challenge to a debate.␈↓

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTIf␈αpossible,␈αI␈αwould␈αlike␈αto␈αeliminate␈αall␈αissues␈αconcerning␈αwhether␈αthe␈αDefense␈αDepartment
␈↓ α∧␈↓is␈αgood␈α
or␈αbad␈αor␈α
the␈αintellectual␈αsource␈α
of␈αWeizenbaum's␈α
or␈αmy␈αviews,␈α
or␈αacademic␈αpolitics.␈α
 Here
␈↓ α∧␈↓is a list of questions that might be discussed, but I will agree to modifications.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT1. Has science become "a slow-acting poison" in any sense of the word?

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT2. Is it impossible for a computer to understand humans?

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT3.␈αIs␈αthere␈αa␈αconcept␈α
of␈αobscenity␈αthat␈αcan␈αbe␈αapplied␈α
to␈αscientific␈αresearch?␈α Is␈αit␈αimmoral␈α
to
␈↓ α∧␈↓couple␈αan␈α
animal␈αbrain␈α
to␈αa␈α
computer?␈α Is␈αit␈α
immoral␈αto␈α
try␈αto␈α
make␈αa␈α
computer␈αprogram␈αthat␈α
will
␈↓ α∧␈↓give␈α
psychiatric␈α∞treatment␈α
-␈α
assuming␈α∞the␈α
precautions␈α
customary␈α∞in␈α
medicine␈α
for␈α∞testing␈α
efficacy
␈↓ α∧␈↓and side-effects?  Is the ARPA supported speech research immoral?

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT4. Do compulsive computer programmers exist in a significant sense?

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αT5.␈αIs␈αthe␈αAI␈αapproach␈αto␈αnatural␈αlanguage␈αof␈αWinograd␈αand␈αSchank␈αa␈αreasonable␈αscientific
␈↓ α∧␈↓enterprise?

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTI␈α⊂will␈α⊂also␈α⊃be␈α⊂glad␈α⊂to␈α⊂defend␈α⊃AI␈α⊂research␈α⊂it␈α⊂it␈α⊃is␈α⊂attacked,␈α⊂but␈α⊂I␈α⊃gather␈α⊂that␈α⊂it␈α⊃can␈α⊂be
␈↓ α∧␈↓stipulated that this research is proceeding reasonably if not optimally.

␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ αTAn␈αoral␈α
debate␈αat␈α
M.I.T.␈αat␈αsome␈α
mutually␈αconvenient␈α
time␈αwould␈αsuit␈α
me␈αfine,␈α
but␈αif␈αthis␈α
is
␈↓ α∧␈↓not agreeable, I am open to counter suggestion.

















␈↓ α∧␈↓␈↓ ε|5␈↓ ∧