RE: Hempel's paradox redux

From: Ben Goertzel (
Date: Thu Sep 15 2005 - 21:40:01 MDT

> If a theory or researcher can't handle the basic, simplest cases
> correctly, it has effectively no hope of handling more complex
> cases correctly. It would be nice to say that everyone understood
> these extremely simple examples of normative reasoning, but
> evidently this is not the case, and attempting to proceed without
> rectifying the deficiency will result in the person in question
> falling flat on their face, predictably and repeatadly. I did so
> myself several times before realising the importance of explicitly
> ensuring that the fundamentals of reasoning are present and correct.


I believe you are the one who stated on this list that not accepting Eli's
of Friendly AI is analogous to not accepting Einstein's theory of
General Relativity.

IMO that statement was a pretty bad lapse of reasoning about a pretty
simple matter (i.e. Eli's theory is not empirically demonstrated at all,
whereas Einstein's is), so I guess that means you are hopeless for
doing complex reasoning too...

You and Eli are tremendously condescending, and it's starting to get on my
nerves; it is not as though you folks have any record of demonstrated
achievement to back up your attitude of tremendous superiority.

I am going to bow out of this increasingly annoying dialogue now,
but you can feel free to keep insulting me if you find it gratifying.

-- Ben

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:52 MDT