Thousands Calling For Apology To Founder Of Computer Science

Gizmodo Australia / BBC ^ | 1 Sept., 2009 | By Joanna Stern

[LowOiL]

Will not be signing... one piece of poo in the brownie mix was enough for me to pass.

[Mojave]

No - in the absence of evidence to the contrary you work with the evidence you have while regularly testing it.

There was NO evidence for his absurd superstitions.

[TomOnTheRun]

There was NO evidence

In the quote you pulled he cites the testing from J. Rhine as well as results from tests with his own patients.

[Mojave]

In the quote you pulled he cites the testing from J. Rhine as well as results from tests with his own patients.

Actually, he falsely claimed that,"Scientific proof of that has been provided by the well-known J. B. Rhine experiments."

Computers are sentient if enough people simply believe that they are, just like "scientific proof" for supernatural powers has been provided simply because Jung believed the nonexistent proof existed.

There's a certain consistency between the two crackpot notions.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Sure, but the ENIAC Model II XL with the turbo option was something to write home about!

[TomOnTheRun]

Actually, he falsely claimed that,"Scientific proof of that has been provided by the well-known J. B. Rhine experiments."

The tests are there. The fact that new tests called those into question doesn't mean that people were out of bounds to refer to Rhine's before they were refuted. Jung also conducted tests on his own patients which seemed to imply something of greater than statistical probability. These were also later refuted. Until refuted it is not illegitimate to refer to them.

Computers are sentient if enough people simply believe that they are, just like "scientific proof" for supernatural powers has been provided simply because Jung believed the nonexistent proof existed.

That's not the point of the test. "Turing, for his part, never intended his test to be used as a practical, day-to-day measure of the intelligence of AI programs; he wanted to provide a clear and understandable example to aid in the discussion of the philosophy of artificial intelligence."

And my day of waiting is over. They are closing and will apparently not keep my appointment. Thank you for providing a diversion from the crap waiting lounge.

[Mojave]

The fact that new tests called those into question doesn't mean that people were out of bounds to refer to Rhine's before they were refuted.

There was NEVER any "scientific proof" no matter how hard you try to believe it into existence.

"Turing, for his part, never intended his test to be used as a practical, day-to-day measure of the intelligence of AI programs..."

Thanks for your uncited quote from an opinion posted by an unknown user in Wikipedia. I especially enjoyed the corresponding citation provided in the Wikipedia endnotes which reads, "CITATION IN PROGRESS."

[fwdude]

This is a poorly written article. What is the apology supposed to be for? The prosecution. or the castration?

They knew exactly what they were writing. In this PC day in which we now live, ambiguous apologies are routinely demanded as a blank check on which to write and advance their radical agenda. The radical homo-fascists will decide what the apology is for, and the apologizer will not be in any position to correct them.