Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T23:31:06.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Brian P. Bloomfield
Brian P. Bloomfield
Affiliation:
Systems Group, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 1987, pp. 69 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Notes

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

2 Bloomfield, B.P. (1986) “Epistemology for Knowledge Engineers”, Communication & Cognition—Artificial Intelligence, vol. 3(4), 305–320.Google Scholar

3 Collins, H.M. et al. (1985) “Where's the expertise: expert systems as a medium of knowledge transfer”, in Merry, M.J. (Ed.) Expert Systems 85 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 325–334.Google Scholar

4 Roycroft, A.J., personal communication. Roycroft, a domain expert in chess endgames, underwent an 18 month secondment at the Turing Institute.Google Scholar