From: smoliar@maclane.iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar) Subject: Re: Virtuality as a system of actions Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1991 00:53:17 GMT Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore In article <1991Sep25.022239.28221@milton.u.washington.edu> HSR4@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Old Baldie) writes: > >In article <1991Sep23.023616.4287@milton.u.washington.edu>, >smoliar@iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar) writes: >> >> ... This was sort of peripheral to the primary argument; but I >> would like to pursue it long enough to raise a minor methodological issue. >> Pete's response was to summon forth the usual round of anecdotes which have >> been interpreted as evidence that apes can at least appreciate, if not >> command, >> not only the signs but also some of the abstract concepts behind those >> signs. >> What is often overlooked is that all these anecdotes come from the >> scientists >> working with the apes who, because of their intimate attachment to the >> subjects, tend to be the poorest possible observers for what are basically >> subjective judgments. > >The 'anecdotes' are, as far as I am presently aware, also the basis for >conclusions drawn by individuals who are presumably not slow-witted and who >might resent the slight on their professionalism. I'm also not sure about >the lack of objectivity implied here: since scientific papers (as well as >books >and articles in popular science journals) are the outcome of such research, >surely the criticism of the peer group is sufficient to hold down any tendency >to anthropomorphise ? Especially since it is a well-recognised tendency and >is therefore watched for ? I'm not currently a researcher in the medical >field (was a lab research technician for 17 years) but even at my level, the >emphasis during all training on the frailties of the human interpreter and >the need to beware of subjectivity, was very strong indeed. Try talking to >a blood group serologist about the interpretation of cross-matches! :-) > A couple of years ago, NOVA ran a program on the current problems in scientific publication and peer review. It may have been run in the United Kingdom as HORIZON; but since it focussed on activities at the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, it may not have qualified "for export." Most of the program was a very critical examination of the peer review process, concluding that it does not work at all as well (read "objectively") as we all would like it to work. To put things in the bluntest possible language, you do not have to be slow-witted to make stupid decisions. > >> ... As far as I am concerned, the last word (for now) on >> this issue has been best expressed by Stephen Jay Gould in "The Quack >> Detector," the last article in his collection AN URCHIN IN THE STORM. >> Here is the relevant paragraph from Gould's article: >> >> Since we scientists are forever demanding deference to our >> professional skills, we could at least respect other equally >> exacting crafts, and not look down upon them because they >> thrive on the stage, but not in the academy. If every >> parapsychologist followed the simple rule of always including >> a professional magician in any test of people claiming >> extrasensory powers, millions of dollars, thousands of >> hours, and hundreds of reputations would be saved. Similarly, >> if the psychologists who tried to teach sign language to >> chimpanzees had bothered to consult the real professionals >> in this area--the great animal trainers of our major >> circuses--they might have avoided some spectacular (and >> now spectacularly embarrassing) claims for conceptualization >> and consciousness that now seem to arise from unconscious >> human cueing and simple coincidence. >> >Although I understand the point you're making (and accept it), the difference >between the subjects under study by a parapsychologist and those under study >by the animal communications researchers is that the former have a strong >tendency to be charlatans and confidence tricksters, while one would assume >(carefully) that a signing ape is not likely to pretend to have understood >abstract concepts unless he/she already has a detailed understanding of the >abstract concept of deception... > Perhaps a bit of context is required here. Gould's article was a review of the book, SCIENCE: GOOD, BAD AND BOGUS, by Martin Gardner. One of Gardner's favorite targets has been Uri Geller. The real target of Gardner's flames, however, was not Geller himself but the rather ludicrous study of his "talents" which was undertaken at SRI. Admittedly, SRI researchers are obliged to pursue research for which they can raise funding; but I do not think any readers of this bulletin board would accuse them of being "charlatans and confidence tricksters." The point Gardner and Gould wanted to make is that at least one skilled conjurer could have told them more about Geller than they were about to establish by their "scientifically correct" techniques. > >Incidentally, the use of a professional conjuror recently in the assessment >of claims made by a certain European researcher turned what should have been >a simple task into a circus. If you would like the references (Nature), I >will be happy to post them. The conjuror is someone for whom I have a great >deal of respect, not least because they have spoken out against one of the >foremost quacks of our time (see sci.skeptic), but the methods he advocated >brought the whole process into (scientific) disrepute since he was applying >techniques more appropriate for the investigation of those with a criminal >bent rather than for those who had exercised bad scientific judgement. > I, for one, would like to see that citation. I would not want to take a defending position until I have read that article. I would also be willing to accept that the line between criminal fraud and bad scientific judgment is a narrow one. I, for one, have not established in my own mind whether the activities of Sir Cyril Burt should, in retrospect, be judged as criminal. Nevertheless, until I know more about this particular matter, I would be willing to opine that a sound scientific judgment should be able to jump through ANY hoops, even those of a criminal investigation. > >It's also interesting that you mention the theatrical metaphor, since in the >multi-media field (which could be regarded as a subset of VR ?) at least one >product - Macromind Director - uses that for its animation and also its >authoring package (Director Interactive); the screen is a stage, the objects >active upon it are cast members, and so on, and the last (MM) company I worked >for was heavily biassed towards television production methods, skills, and >standards - visual impact was king (or queen, since the director was a woman), >and many tricks of the trade were used (especially in graphics, where depth >and texture cueing were vital in the presentation of credible (albeit >stylised) images (chromosomes, and DNA synthesis, in case you wondered), and >human psychology played a large part in the design of even the simplest text >feedback (such as statements of approval or correction). > >If you'd like to pursue this peripheral thread independent of sci.virtual- >worlds (the moderator may feel this is not pertinent) I am happy to engage >in discussion until the (virtual) cows come home... > Actually, I think the theatrical thread is DEFINITELY pertinent. I worry a bit that we are spending more time on fancy new hardware than on some relatively fundamental questions of interaction and communication. A few theater technicians could bring significant intuition to the "virtual arena." Are there any projects which have engaged such talents? -- Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511 Internet: smoliar@iss.nus.sg (USE THIS ADDRESS; SOURCE LINE MAY BE WRONG!)