COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	winogr[s86,jmc]		Winograd's vagueness
C00004 ENDMK
C⊗;
winogr[s86,jmc]		Winograd's vagueness

	I would defend the "rationalistic orientation" against the
attack given in Flores's and Winograd's book, which I have read,
had Winograd bothered to present some of the attack.  This defense,
however, would have to admit that some of the examples
in the book present problems for previous formalizations used
in AI.  Their proper treatment requires a considerable elaboration
of the existing, though new, methods of formalized non-monotonic
reasoning.  They may also require something along the lines of
formalized contexts, a subject I have recently been studying.

	I especially like the question about whether there is
water in the refrigerator, the issue of what knowledge of flies
may be ascribed to a frog's retina, and the Heidegger (or is
it Flores and Winograd) parable of hammering.

	Oh well, too bad.

	As for the stuff about considering the consequences of
one's work, one should indeed, but the one must remember that
the scientist isn't the boss of society and can neither force
society to use the results of science nor prevent it from doing
so.