Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!osiris.cso.uiuc.edu!goldfain From: goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Language Learning (anecdotes) Message-ID: <8300016@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 13 Dec 87 08:55:00 GMT References: <1117@uhccux.UUCP> Lines: 24 Nf-ID: #R:uhccux.UUCP:-111700:osiris.cso.uiuc.edu:8300016:000:1469 Nf-From: osiris.cso.uiuc.edu!goldfain Dec 13 02:55:00 1987 rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP posted a note in comp.ai which I feel warrants response: < In article <8300015@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu> goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu writes: < > [ ... excerpted quote not reproduced ... -MSG ] < I don't think that this would be a very interesting newsgroup if there were < no debates. The crystallization issue is interesting, and it merits < intelligent discussion. The point is not to "solve" the issue, but to < increase our understanding of it. You have a lot to say on a subject that < you seem to feel ought not to be discussed :-]. I, myself, feel that we < ought to know something about what we are testing before we rush into the < laboratory to test it. For the most part, our comments are not altogether inconsistent. I am all for "intelligent discussion", and am making no attempt to discourage debate on the net in general. I certainly object that it is a misrepresentation of my views to say that I feel this issue "ought not to be discussed". What I hoped to contribute to the discussion was some general advice on what one may expect to come from the current topic and debate. My remarks were specifically in terms of advancing science, which I will readily admit is not the only goal of the audience of this forum. In the cited posting, the phrase "increase our understanding" is precisely what is in doubt, unless we take due precaution. Mark Goldfain internet : goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu