Search
1987 Volume 2
Article Contents
RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

More comments on rule induction: A reply to Bratko and Michie

More Information
  • In their paper “Some Comments on Rule Induction” Bratko and Michie address only three of the seven concerns that I put forward in my original article. Significantly, they have chosen to ignore the deeper and more important philosophical issues which I raised, while seeking to deflect my concerns by proclaiming their own privileged position of “being in the know” as experienced rule inductionists. This is a strategy well-known to philosophers and sociologists of science, unfortunately, it tends to stifle debate and avoids the serious consideration of constructive criticism. It is therefore important to respond to the comments made by Bratko and Michie and to re-focus attention on the central themes of my argument.
  • 加载中
  • Cite this article

    LakatosI. [1976] Proofs and Refutations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) doi: 10.1017/S0269888900000734
    LakatosI. [1976] Proofs and Refutations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) doi: 10.1017/S0269888900000734

Article Metrics

Article views(14) PDF downloads(45)

Other Articles By Authors

RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

More comments on rule induction: A reply to Bratko and Michie

The Knowledge Engineering Review  2 Article number: 10.1017/S0269888900000734  (1987)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: In their paper “Some Comments on Rule Induction” Bratko and Michie address only three of the seven concerns that I put forward in my original article. Significantly, they have chosen to ignore the deeper and more important philosophical issues which I raised, while seeking to deflect my concerns by proclaiming their own privileged position of “being in the know” as experienced rule inductionists. This is a strategy well-known to philosophers and sociologists of science, unfortunately, it tends to stifle debate and avoids the serious consideration of constructive criticism. It is therefore important to respond to the comments made by Bratko and Michie and to re-focus attention on the central themes of my argument.

    • For examples from the history of mathematics see: LakatosI. [1976] Proofs and Refutations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). For an example from simulation modelling and systems analysis see: Bloom-fieldB.P. (1986) Modelling the World: The Social Constructions of Systems Analysts (Oxford: Basil Black-well), Chapter 6.

    • BloomfieldB.P. (1986) “Epistemology for Knowledge Engineers”, Communication & Cognition—Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3(4), 305320.

    • CollinsH.M. (1985) “Where's the expertise: expert systems as a medium of knowledge transfer”, in MerryM.J. (Ed.) Expert Systems 85 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 325334.

    • RoycroftA.J., personal communication. Roycroft, a domain expert in chess endgames, underwent an 18 month secondment at the Turing Institute.

    • Copyright © Cambridge University Press 19871987Cambridge University Press
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    LakatosI. [1976] Proofs and Refutations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) doi: 10.1017/S0269888900000734
    LakatosI. [1976] Proofs and Refutations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) doi: 10.1017/S0269888900000734
  • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return