Human and Machine Thinking (MacEachran Memorial Series)

Rating:
Summary: Dive Right In
Review: This is one of two central books in the debate about human thinking carried on by Philip Johnson-Laird and Lance Rips. The other is, of course, by Lance Rips. As the editorial review says, it is very readable, yet it pulls out the main questions about human thought and gives lucid descriptions of and arguments for J-L's side of the question. It is far from conclusive, however. One might hope that by reading both sides of the debate, a definite answer might present itself. The experiments that have been done were done differently, of course with differing results, by those involved with the debates. Because the experiments were designed to find specific results, depending on the prejudice of the experimenter, the experiments found what the researchers were looking for. This has not solved any problems, but it has lead to an interesting set of publications for everyone working on this. The way this research was designed is an unfortunate consequence of the way academia works--publication is more important than answering questions or trying to find a way to get objective results. Designing and carrying out experiments that aren't designed to show a certain result is still an option, if humanly possible.

Rating:
Summary: Dive Right In
Review: This is one of two central books in the debate about human thinking carried on by Philip Johnson-Laird and Lance Rips. The other is, of course, by Lance Rips. As the editorial review says, it is very readable, yet it pulls out the main questions about human thought and gives lucid descriptions of and arguments for J-L's side of the question. It is far from conclusive, however. One might hope that by reading both sides of the debate, a definite answer might present itself. The experiments that have been done were done differently, of course with differing results, by those involved with the debates. Because the experiments were designed to find specific results, depending on the prejudice of the experimenter, the experiments found what the researchers were looking for. This has not solved any problems, but it has lead to an interesting set of publications for everyone working on this. The way this research was designed is an unfortunate consequence of the way academia works--publication is more important than answering questions or trying to find a way to get objective results. Designing and carrying out experiments that aren't designed to show a certain result is still an option, if humanly possible.