Re: [Wittrs] New reply to Re: Wittgenstein, Statistics and Judgment by Robbit
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Robbit: "... seems eminently pertinent to this starnge notion that LW would
have anything much to contribute to proto-scientific modeling of "expert
judgement". The last thing he was interested in is armchair scienctific model
building and speculation." "
Rob: I'm unsure if you missed this point or if I am misreading you. They guy
said, in a moment of curiosity, something like: "I wonder what expert judgment
really is?" (for purposes of wondering whether AI could replicate it). I
followed by directing him to Wittgenstein's concern with the nature of
aesthetical judgments. This concern surely implicates his question and would
have a great deal to offer. Especially the parts about: seeing as,
non-universality, appreciation is shown not proved, "getting it,"
non-formalistic style of judgment, etc. etc.
So, before he can ask whether AI can simulate connoisseur judgment, he needs to
know what that is. And if he comes to believe that a magical kind of technology
in the future might replicate it, he would need further help to see that this
has no bearing on his current belief that statistical and formal methods stand
distinct from and outperform connoisseurs. One confusions arises from not
knowing what connoisseur judgment is, the other from not seeing what happens to
his language game when the conditions that create it get messed up in the
future.
Did I misread your quote?
SW
_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Other related posts:
- » Re: [Wittrs] New reply to Re: Wittgenstein, Statistics and Judgment by Robbit - Sean Wilson
