From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Apr 10 20:11:13 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 l3B0BDqx027062 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.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 l3B0BAis009749 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 8690 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2007 00:11:10 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Apr 2007 00:11:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 8662 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2007 00:11:09 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Apr 2007 00:11:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 9308 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2007 00:11:01 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Apr 2007 00:11:01 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4531954 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:11:01 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 26220 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2007 00:11:00 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Apr 2007 00:11:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 13449 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2007 00:11:00 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Apr 2007 00:11:00 -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 l3B0B07K027039 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:11:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l3B0B076027038 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:11:00 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200704110011.l3B0B076027038@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:11:00 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: POSITION PAPER 5 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 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3064/Tue Apr 10 12:25:23 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 793 A student writes: | | For position paper 5, do you want us to include our "breakdown" of the | premises and conclusions that we listed from the arguments presented, and | then analyze everything? Or do you want us to just incorporate them within | the text of our papers? If you want them incorporated, is it proper to say | things like, "I agree with Con that computer programs are purely syntactic | because..." or would you prefer us to use statements as if we were arguing | one side, and not refer to the "premises" (such as..."Computer programs are | purely syntactic because..."). Thanks a lot! It's up to you, but I think it will be easier both for you and for us grading it if you explicitly show the two arguments as two lists of premises and a conclusion, and then analyze them.