From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Mar 1 00:51:44 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l215phei009889 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 00:51:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l215pYqN014223 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 00:51:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28356 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 05:51:34 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 05:51:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 28345 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 05:51:34 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 05:51:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 8685 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 05:51:30 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 05:51:30 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3565168 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 00:51:30 -0500 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 24018 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 05:51:29 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 05:51:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 221 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 05:51:29 -0000 Received: from 68-168-91-191.kntnny.adelphia.net (HELO ?192.168.2.101?) (68.168.91.191) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 05:51:29 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) References: <1172705919.45e6127f42842@mail2.buffalo.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-UB-Relay: (68-168-91-191.kntnny.adelphia.net) X-PM-Spam-Prob: XX: 22% Message-ID: <68628503-A5D4-4237-92BE-943AB8E59F43@BUFFALO.EDU> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 00:51:26 -0500 Reply-To: Kyle Jacobs Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: Kyle Jacobs Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU In-Reply-To: Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (68-168-91-191.kntnny.adelphia.net) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2686/Wed Feb 28 22:53:49 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 2077 On Feb 28, 2007, at 11:47 PM, Albert Goldfain wrote: >> Here here! >> >> I don't mind a "higher bar" as far as standards go, but I >> wholeheartedly object to camouflaging the damned thing is patently >> unacceptable. > > "camouflage" is not on for PP2...grading rubric is out >> Loosing 33% of the entire paper's worth on something that the >> original specification DIDN'T SPECIFY is ridiculous to say the least. > > Specification from > > http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/584/S07/pospaper1.html > > * If you think that it doesn't follow, is there some > (interesting, > non-trivial) missing premise (i.e., a "missing link" between the > premises > and conclusion) that would make it follow? (If so, do you agree > with that > missing premise? Why (not)?) Let's see. Follow this logic. Sorry it's paraphrased, but english is a natural language. The hidden premise is "Computer science studies computers, (computers are not natural,) therefore CS isn't an S." Such a premise is neither presented in the paper, nor explicitly required in the "you should..." portion where the actual responsibilities are enumerated for the student. I will admit to you, there are portions referring to a "missing" premise. These also state that the existence of such a premise may or may not actually "be", and, in addition, if it does, it must be "non- trivial." Well, the missing premise is obviously trivial unless you believe Computers grow on trees. If that's the case, you MIGHT want to sell Intel a new business model (perhaps a new Latin American chip farm?) Now I can smell the "birds-nest as natural phenomena" argument coming right up. We were told to ignore "political considerations", remember? I'll spare the litany on pretentious scientific discipline differentiation for the time being. Besides, this paper wasn't about the "nature of computation". It was about a the computer science department at an imaginary university being transfered to another school like an old christmas fruitcake for "not being sciency enough". From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Mar 1 01:08:51 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2168pus010302 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 01:08:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l2168gcW014876 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 01:08:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 10482 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 06:08:42 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 06:08:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 5064 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 06:08:42 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 06:08:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 25229 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 06:08:30 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 06:08:30 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3565360 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 01:08:30 -0500 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 1810 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 06:08:30 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 06:08:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 12099 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Mar 2007 06:08:29 -0000 X-Mailer: University at Buffalo WebMail Cyrusoft SilkyMail v1.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: 70.104.60.127 X-UB-Relay: (internal) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <1172729309.45e66dddd4722@mail2.buffalo.edu> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 01:08:29 -0500 Reply-To: Vince Spinelli Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: Vince Spinelli Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 Comments: To: kfjacobs@BUFFALO.EDU To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2689/Thu Mar 1 00:46:09 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1456 Two thoughts... 1- Mr. Goldfain does point out that the rubic is already published for paper #2. Considering this, it makes my original argument moot for paper #2 (and any other paper for which the rubic is released pre-final-submission). *shrug* That's all well and good by me -- albeit a subjective answer, but an answer. 2- <> Whilst I dare not *twiddles fingers* delve to such grammatical fisticuffs, I can't help but admire your willingness to stand up for yourself. Be wary though, I made a logical argument a few years ago that was so logical and correct that I ended up with an opponent who simply backed away from the exchange rather than submit to fact, which resulted in my having to repeat EAS-***. But, alas, I'm skipping on back to work on -- !dun dun dun! -- CSE homework. If someone wants to tell me what an EE gains from taking ARM Assembly Language, feel free... as it has escaped me, much like the afore mentioned fruitcake. --------------------------------------- Vince Spinelli University at Buffalo: EE --------------------------------------- "Kind of off his mental reservation." - ancient cowboy wisdom. --------------------------------------- Vince@SpinelliCreations.com [vfs@buffalo.edu / vfs@eng.buffalo.edu] From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Mar 1 08:46:56 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l21Dkutd023899 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:46:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l21Dkkel057425 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:46:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 10628 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 13:46:46 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 13:46:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 23036 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 13:46:45 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 13:46:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 13172 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 13:46:30 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 13:46:30 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3569591 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:46:30 -0500 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 28168 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 13:46:29 -0000 Received: from mailscan3.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.135) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 13:46:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 17392 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 13:46:29 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 13:46:29 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l21DkSHc023868; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:46:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l21DkSbO023867; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:46:28 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200703011346.l21DkSbO023867@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:46:28 -0500 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 Comments: To: vfs@BUFFALO.EDU To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2690/Thu Mar 1 06:11:27 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 4147 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:38:39 -0500 | From: Vince Spinelli | Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 | To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU | | The 'hidden premise' was not stated as a necessity within the assignment. Agreed; I did not say that there was (or that there wasn't) a hidden premise. That would have been a bit like giving you a word problem in math and telling you that you had to divide rather than, say, multiply. When you're analyzing an argument, you don't know ahead of time what to expect. | That being said, a student who believed the original argument to follow | would find no need to search for a hidden premise. "A student who believed the orginal argument to follow" would simply have been wrong. The argument had the form: All Fs are G (Science studies natural phenomena) All Hs are J (Computer science studies computers) So, All Hs are not Fs (CS isn't a science) That argument is simply invalid. That is, it's perfectly possible for all Fs to be G and for all Hs to be J but for some Hs to be Fs. For instance, All birds have feathers All canaries are yellow. So, all canaries are not birds is an argument with that form but whose conclusion is obviously false even though both premises are true. | -- 'interesting' and 'nontrivial' are subjective terms. | | Personally, I find the premise stated within the grading rubic email to | be wholly trivial and non-interesting. "Trivial" is not a subjective term. It means "obvious" or "tautological" (or, sometimes, "obviously contradictory"). The missing premise, namely, that computers are not natural phenomena, is not trivial. As to whether it is "interesting", if you don't find it so, then why are you taking this course? | Were one trifling enough, they would likely find a never ending number | of hidden premises in any argument. No. Valid arguments have no hidden premises. Invalid ones don't necessarily have them either. But some arguments, such as this one, are incomplete as they stand (hence invalid) and can be supplemented with a missing premise that will make it valid. | In fact, one might even argue that | every word (whether written or spoken) can be a mini-premise in and of | itself (the meaning of such word, its interpretation in context, etc). No. Words are neither true nor false. Premises are sentences and must be either true or else false. | A more effective means of soliciting a student's review of such a hidden | premise would be to state something to the effect of... "[regardless of | whether you agree or disagree]There is an implied {or use 'hidden'} | premise within this argument. Identify it, and state whether you agree | or disagree with it. Also, does this implied premise add any weight to | the writer's argument?" As I said above, that makes the argument too easy. In real life, you're not given this kind of information. | Of course, we could banter on and on with regard to this, but, at some | point, one must realize a 'fact' (whether it be philosophically 'true' | or not, be damned; You must have missed my earlier postings in which I pointed out that "facts" are situations in the world, states of affairs. They are not sentences, hence can't be "true" or "false". Those postings are online at: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/584/S07/EMAIL/20070129-factsVsStatements.txt and http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/584/S07/EMAIL/20070202-factsVsStatements.txt | ...the student may hold the grader accountable to a | particular standard, prior to the student submitting the paper for grading. Agreed; I should have posted the grading standard ahead of time, and I'm compensating for that by (a) dropping the lowest position-paper grade (I can't fairly drop the grade on Position Paper #1 for everyone, since many people got high grades and wouldn't be happy about that) and (b) posting the grading standard for #2 (and subsequent ones). From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Mar 1 08:52:40 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l21Dqe3g024047 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:52:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l21DqXjb057671 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:52:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27834 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 13:52:33 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 13:52:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 8598 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 13:52:33 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 13:52:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 18973 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 13:52:18 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 13:52:18 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3569653 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:52:17 -0500 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 1340 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 13:52:17 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 13:52:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 26488 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 13:52:17 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 13:52:17 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l21DqGn9024017 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:52:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l21DqGfp024016 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:52:16 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200703011352.l21DqGfp024016@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:52:16 -0500 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2690/Thu Mar 1 06:11:27 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1766 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:08:41 -0500 | From: Kyle Jacobs | Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 | To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU | | Here here! Should be "hear, hear!" :-) | Loosing 33% of the entire paper's worth on something that the | original specification DIDN'T SPECIFY is ridiculous to say the least. I quote from the original specification: "Say whether you agree that conclusion (3) logically follows from premises (1) and (2) (whether or not you agree with (1) and (2)), and why you think it follows or doesn't. * If you think that it doesn't follow, is there some (interesting, non-trivial) missing premise (i.e., a "missing link" between the premises and conclusion) that would make it follow? (If so, do you agree with that missing premise? Why (not)?)" Note that most people who lost points on this aspect lost not so much because they failed to identify the missing premise, but because they said nothing whatsoever about the validity of the argument. Let me try to turn this into something positive. In real life, on a real job, a programmer who is asked to write a program is typically given specifications. The specs are not always as clear and precise as the final program needs to be. If the programmer interprets the specs one way but the client interpreted them another, it's the programmer who has to rewrite the program. We'll be reading a paper by Beth Preston that discusses the relationship of specs to programs (under the guise of whether or not "recipes" are "procedures"). From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Mar 1 09:03:42 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l21E3fQW024326 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:03:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l21E3WGD058193 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:03:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 14301 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 14:03:32 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 14:03:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 14259 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 14:03:32 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 14:03:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 2685 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 14:03:17 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 14:03:17 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3569938 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:03:17 -0500 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 6983 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 14:03:16 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 14:03:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 29014 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 14:03:15 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 14:03:15 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l21E3EJ1024308 for ; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:03:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l21E3EA3024307 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:03:14 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200703011403.l21E3EA3024307@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:03:14 -0500 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2690/Thu Mar 1 06:11:27 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 2381 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 00:51:26 -0500 | From: Kyle Jacobs | Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 | To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU | | The hidden premise is "Computer science studies computers, (computers | are not natural,) therefore CS isn't an S." Nope. That's an entire argument that itself has a hidden premise. The hidden premise in the argument of Position Paper #1 was simply: "computers are not natural phenomena". | Such a premise is neither presented in the paper, Correct; it was missing! | nor explicitly | required in the "you should..." portion where the actual | responsibilities are enumerated for the student. That's where we differ on interpretation. | Well, the missing premise is obviously trivial unless you believe | Computers grow on trees. Artifacts, broadly construed, are things that are made by living things (like bird nests, bee hives, buildings, computers, etc.), rather than things that exist independently of being made (like trees). You may have a different definition of "artifact". Deciding what counts as "natural" vs. "artificial" is exactly what the controversy over the missing premise is. (Not the grading controversy; I mean the philosophical controversy.) You may think that the missing premise is trivially true. But that there is a missing premise is *not* trivial. As I pointed out in a previous posting, the argument is simply invalid unless you add that missing premise. If you think that that missing premise is trivially true, and if you disagree with the conclusion, then you know that you have to focus your disagreement on one of the other premises (rather than, say, on the logical invalidity of the argument). | Now I can smell the "birds-nest as natural phenomena" argument coming | right up. Good nose! :-) | Besides, this paper wasn't about the "nature of computation". It was | about a the computer science department at an imaginary university | being transfered to another school like an old christmas fruitcake | for "not being sciency enough". But the argument was that it wasn't sciency enough because of the nature of computers!