As a field, artificial intelligence has always been on the border of respectability, and therefore on the border of crackpottery. Many critics (Dreyfus, 1972), (Lighthill, 1973) have urged that we are over the border. We have been very defensive toward this charge, drawing ourselves up with dignity when it is made and folding the cloak of Science about us. On the other hand, in private, we have been justifiably proud of our willingness to explore weird ideas, because pursuing them is the only way to make progress.

Anyone interested in acting as editor for a special issue of the Newsletter devoted to a particular topic in A! is invited to contact the Editor. Letters to the Editor will be considered as submitted for publication unless they contain a request to the contrary. Technical papers appearing in this issue are unrefereed working papers, and opinions expressed in contributions are to be construed as those of the individual author rather than the official position of SIGART,the ACM, or any organization with which the writer may be affiliated. You are invited to join and participate actively. SIGART membership is open to ACM members upon payment of dues of $3.00 per year and to non-ACM members upon payment of dues of $5.00 per year. To indicate a change of address or to become a member of SIGART, complete the form on the last page of this issue.

A YOUNG MAN, WHO HAS OLIGURIA. IT HAS BEEN DENIED THAT HE HAS RECENT SCARLET FEVER. HE HAS NOT-RECEIVED RADIOGRAPHIC CONTRAST MATERIAL. HE HAS NOT-RECEIVED NEPHROTOXIC DRUGS. HE HAS MODERATELY-ELEVATED URINE SODIUM.

See also: (pdf) J. Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 97, 270-277

New York: North- Holland.

TINLAP-1, 38-41.

After examining the simplest statements thaï can be based on a verb, a noun and an adjective, we go on to more complex statements involving articles, relative clauses and négations. Emphasis is laid on the systematic transformation ofa sentence into a semantic formula, h appears that such semantic formulae can be interpre ted correctly only in a logical system wit h three truth-values. Moreover one must suppose that the elementary relations associâted wit h the verb s, nouns and adjective s range not on individuals, but on sets of individuals.

New York: McGraw-Hill

Reprinted in Readings in Uncertain Reasoning, G. Shafer and J. Pearl, eds., pp. 259-273, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1990.See also: Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research (BMIR).… quantifying confirmation and then manipulating the numbers as though they were probabilities quickly leads to apparent inconsistencies or paradoxes. Carl Hempel presented an early analysis of confirmation (Hempel, 1965), pointing out as we have that C[h,e] is a very different concept from P(hle ). His famous Paradox of the Ravens was presented early in his discussion of the logic of confirmation. Let hl be the statement that "all ravens are black" and h2 the statement that "all nonblack things are nonravens." Clearly hi is logically equivalent to h,2. If one were to draw an analogy with conditional probability, it might at first seem valid, therefore, to assert that C[hl,e] = C[h2,e] for all e. However, it appears counterintuitive to state that the observation of a green vase supports hi, even though the observation does seem to support h,2. C[h,e] is therefore different from P(hle) for it seems somehow wrong that an observation of a vase could logically support an assertion about ravens. Another characteristic of a quantitative approach to confirmation that distinguishes the concept from probability was well-recognized by Carnap (1950) and discussed by Barker (1957) and Harrd (1970). They note it is counterintuitive to suggest that the confirmation of the negation of a hypothesis is equal to one minus the confirmation of the hypothesis, i.e., C[h,e] is not 1 - C[-qh,e]. The streptococcal decision rule asserted that a gram-positive coccus growing in chains is a Streptococcus with a measure of support specified as 7 out of 10. This translates to C[h,e]=0.7 where h is "the organism is a Streptococcus" and e is the information that "the organism is a gram-positive coccus growing in chains." As discussed above, an expert does not necessarily believe that C[mh,e] = 0.3. The evidence is said to be supportive of the contention that the organism is a Streptococcus and can therefore hardly also support the contention that the organism is not a Streptococcus. Ch.13 of Mycin Book; revised from Math. Biosci. 23:351-379

TINLAP-1, 34-37.