I need some book recommendation on Common Lisp. I know Scheme, that
is syntax and basically how the language works. I have some, but not
too much of experience in solving problems in Scheme. I'd like to learn
more about Common Lisp, in particular I'd like to learn those clever
techniques of problem solving in CL. I'm going to buy Paradigms of AI
Programming by Peter Norvig. I know there are some differences between
Scheme and CL and I was wondering if buying a book like Common Lisp
by Paul Graham is also recommended. Can anybody give me an advice
on that?
PS. Does the ``On Lisp'' book really exist? Has anybody actually seen
the book? I've searched virtually every internet bookstore out there
and nobody has it. :(
Is there any other book that would be both, a good substitute for
``On Lisp'', and be possible to get?
--
,oOo.Bc -=EE Krzysztof Parzyszek <······@iname.com> 4/12/2001 5:15pm
-'7' `L' ---This sentence has exactly threee erors.
······@iname.com (Krzysztof Parzyszek) writes:
> PS. Does the ``On Lisp'' book really exist?
Yes.
> Has anybody actually seen the book?
Not only that, I've have even touched it and read it, and, last night, it
still hadn't disappeared in a puff of smoke.
> I've searched virtually every internet bookstore out there
> and nobody has it. :(
I got my copy from amazon.co.uk in March or April, but a quick glance
just now didn't seem to come up with anything (though they are still
advertising the mythical second edition of ANSI Common Lisp).
Jacek
On 17 Aug 2001 08:16:42 +0100, Jacek Generowicz wrote:
> ······@iname.com (Krzysztof Parzyszek) writes:
>
>> PS. Does the ``On Lisp'' book really exist?
>
> Yes.
Yeah, I know. But it has been out of print for quite a while and doesn't
seem to be available at all.
> I got my copy from amazon.co.uk in March or April, but a quick glance
> just now didn't seem to come up with anything (though they are still
> advertising the mythical second edition of ANSI Common Lisp).
And I got an email from Amazon.co.uk yesterday saying that they were
unable to locate a copy. :(
--
,oOo.Bc -=EE Krzysztof Parzyszek <······@iname.com> 4/12/2001 5:15pm
-'7' `L' ---This sentence has exactly threee erors.
"Jacek Generowicz" <···@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
···················@scumbag.ecs.soton.ac.uk...
> ······@iname.com (Krzysztof Parzyszek) writes:
>
> > PS. Does the ``On Lisp'' book really exist?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Has anybody actually seen the book?
>
> Not only that, I've have even touched it and read it, and, last night, it
> still hadn't disappeared in a puff of smoke.
>
> > I've searched virtually every internet bookstore out there
> > and nobody has it. :(
>
> I got my copy from amazon.co.uk in March or April, but a quick glance
> just now didn't seem to come up with anything (though they are still
> advertising the mythical second edition of ANSI Common Lisp).
>
> Jacek
On Lisp is a comprehensive study of advanced Lisp
techniques, with bottom-up programming as the
unifying theme. It gives the first complete description
of macros and macro applications. The book also
covers important subjects related to bottom-up
programming, including functional programming,
rapid prototyping, interactive development, and
embedded languages. The final chapter takes a
deeper look at object-oriented programming than
previous Lisp books, showing the step-by-step
construction of a working model of the Common
Lisp Object System (CLOS).
http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html Paul Graham
The code used in the book is downloadable.
As well as an indispensable reference, On Lisp
is a source of software. Its examples form a library
of functions and macros that readers will be able
to use in their own Lisp programs.
Prentice Hall, 1993, 432 pages, paperbound. ISBN 0130305529.
* ······@iname.com (Krzysztof Parzyszek)
> I need some book recommendation on Common Lisp. I know Scheme, that
> is syntax and basically how the language works. I have some, but not
> too much of experience in solving problems in Scheme. I'd like to learn
> more about Common Lisp, in particular I'd like to learn those clever
> techniques of problem solving in CL. I'm going to buy Paradigms of AI
> Programming by Peter Norvig. I know there are some differences between
> Scheme and CL and I was wondering if buying a book like Common Lisp
> by Paul Graham is also recommended. Can anybody give me an advice
> on that?
You will get started without it, but it's a good introduction. There is a
chapter in PAIP devoted to the differences between Scheme and CL. Don't
expect that knowing Scheme will help much, I don't think Scheme and CL are
more similar than C and Java.
However, I really think any serious lisper should read _all_ of the
following books (a newbie should probably read the three first ones in that
order, the two latter could be read at any time after ANSI Common Lisp):
ANSI Common Lisp (Graham)
Object Oriented Programming i Common Lisp (Keene)
The Art of the Metaobject Protocol (Kiczales, Rivi�res, Bobrow)
On Lisp (Graham)
Paradigms of AI Programming (Norvig)
Common Lisp the Language (Steele) should most likely be added to the list,
but I have not read that one myself yet. OOP in CL and On Lisp are out of
print, and can be hard to get.
All these books teach programming techniques you might never think of
yourself, but more importantly, it is _always_ stimulating to study
experienced lispers ways to approach the language. Just don't forget to
take their opinions for what they are, namely opinions. For instance, when
I read On Lisp I was struck by a feeling that it's written by someone a bit
dissatisfied with the language as it is, and that he's got a sort of
schemish approach to problem solving. But even though I don't share his
concerns, the process of evaluating his views gives depth to my own
understanding of the language.
Erik
Erik Haugan <····@haugan.no> said:
All these books teach programming techniques you might never think
of yourself, but more importantly, it is _always_ stimulating to
study experienced lispers ways to approach the language. Just don't
forget to take their opinions for what they are, namely opinions.
These are both important comments. I would also suggest looking
carefully at Chris Riesbeck's web site for his AI programming course,
including particularly his comments on Graham's book and his automated
lisp code critic.
http://www.cs.nwu.edu/academics/courses/c25/
Larry
--
Lawrence Hunter, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Computational Pharmacology
Associate Professor of Pharmacology, PMB & Computer Science
URL: http://compbio.uchsc.edu/Hunter
phone (303) 315-1094 UCHSC, Campus Box C236
fax (303) 315-1098 School of Medicine rm 2817b
cell (303) 324-0355 4200 E. 9th Ave.
email: ············@uchsc.edu Denver, CO 80262
In article <··············@huge.uchsc.edu>,
Larry Hunter <············@uchsc.edu> wrote:
>
>Erik Haugan <····@haugan.no> said:
>
> All these books teach programming techniques you might never think
> of yourself, but more importantly, it is _always_ stimulating to
> study experienced lispers ways to approach the language. Just don't
> forget to take their opinions for what they are, namely opinions.
>
>These are both important comments. I would also suggest looking
>carefully at Chris Riesbeck's web site for his AI programming course,
>including particularly his comments on Graham's book and his automated
>lisp code critic.
>
> http://www.cs.nwu.edu/academics/courses/c25/
I was intrigued to find Riesbeck saying that a
preference for IF over COND, even in situations where
the latter would avoid nested IFs and/or PROGNs, was
indicative of Graham's susceptibility to "Scheme
style". I haven't seen any non-newbie Scheme
programmer exhibit this preference and my own, more
scripty, code doesn't show up even one instance of this
preference.
I can imagine that programs that are works in progress
may have a nested IF or PROGN added into a new draft
without a corresponding reworking of the IF into a COND
also taking place. That seems hardly peculiar to
Scheme. The other scenario is generated code in
which it may be easier to generate IFs, again a
situation not peculiar to Scheme.
This is not to say that Graham may not have quaffed
from the fountain of Scheme a bit too deeply for
some folks' liking, but if he does have an
IF-preference, he must have gotten it somewhere else.
--d
In article <············@news.gte.com>, ····@goldshoe.gte.com (Dorai
Sitaram) wrote:
>In article <··············@huge.uchsc.edu>,
>Larry Hunter <············@uchsc.edu> wrote:
>
>>These are both important comments. I would also suggest looking
>>carefully at Chris Riesbeck's web site for his AI programming course,
>>including particularly his comments on Graham's book and his automated
>>lisp code critic.
>>
>> http://www.cs.nwu.edu/academics/courses/c25/
>
>I was intrigued to find Riesbeck saying that a
>preference for IF over COND, even in situations where
>the latter would avoid nested IFs and/or PROGNs, was
>indicative of Graham's susceptibility to "Scheme
>style". I haven't seen any non-newbie Scheme
>programmer exhibit this preference and my own, more
>scripty, code doesn't show up even one instance of this
>preference.
Well I have, and that, plus his fondness for recursion,
led to that inference. But there was no need for
me to make that comment and it's been deleted.
>I can imagine that programs that are works in progress
>may have a nested IF or PROGN added into a new draft
>without a corresponding reworking of the IF into a COND
>also taking place.
I don't see the relevance of this point. The code
in question occurs in numerous places in the book,
and not as part of any developmental sequence.
And for all my nitpicking I do like the book. I wouldn't
use it otherwise.
In article <······························@news.it.nwu.edu>,
Chris Riesbeck <········@cs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>In article <············@news.gte.com>, ····@goldshoe.gte.com (Dorai
>Sitaram) wrote:
>>
>>I was intrigued to find Riesbeck saying that a
>>preference for IF over COND, even in situations where
>>the latter would avoid nested IFs and/or PROGNs, was
>>indicative of Graham's susceptibility to "Scheme
>>style". I haven't seen any non-newbie Scheme
>>programmer exhibit this preference and my own, more
>>scripty, code doesn't show up even one instance of this
>>preference.
>
>Well I have, and that, plus his fondness for recursion,
>led to that inference. But there was no need for
>me to make that comment and it's been deleted.
>
>>I can imagine that programs that are works in progress
>>may have a nested IF or PROGN added into a new draft
>>without a corresponding reworking of the IF into a COND
>>also taking place.
>
>I don't see the relevance of this point. The code
>in question occurs in numerous places in the book,
>and not as part of any developmental sequence.
Sorry I wasn't clear: I didn't mean to explain why
Graham did what he did. I was conceding that you may
have based your characterization of Scheme style from
having seen some Scheme code where IFs were indeed used
where CONDS would have been nicer, but that there may
be explanations for it other than community-wide
stylistic preference.
>And for all my nitpicking I do like the book. I wouldn't
>use it otherwise.
Of course. Nothing untoward intended or implied.
--d
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Erik Haugan wrote:
> However, I really think any serious lisper should read _all_ of the
> following books (a newbie should probably read the three first ones in that
> order, the two latter could be read at any time after ANSI Common Lisp):
>
> ANSI Common Lisp (Graham)
> Object Oriented Programming i Common Lisp (Keene)
> The Art of the Metaobject Protocol (Kiczales, Rivières, Bobrow)
> On Lisp (Graham)
> Paradigms of AI Programming (Norvig)
>
> Common Lisp the Language (Steele) should most likely be added to the list,
> but I have not read that one myself yet. OOP in CL and On Lisp are out of
> print, and can be hard to get.
Actually, OOP in CL is back in print.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201175894/
>
> All these books teach programming techniques you might never think of
> yourself, but more importantly, it is _always_ stimulating to study
> experienced lispers ways to approach the language. Just don't forget to
> take their opinions for what they are, namely opinions. For instance, when
> I read On Lisp I was struck by a feeling that it's written by someone a bit
> dissatisfied with the language as it is, and that he's got a sort of
> schemish approach to problem solving. But even though I don't share his
> concerns, the process of evaluating his views gives depth to my own
> understanding of the language.
FWIW, I just encountered someone who didn't like Graham's "ANSI Common
Lisp" very much. I was surprised as it has such a good reputation here.
This guy, who's very skilled and experienced in object oriented
programming and our problem domain, is trying to get up to speed in Lisp;
he found that "ANSI Common Lisp" just isn't advanced enough to cover the
stuff we're doing. I'm not sure if there's a book out there for him;
maybe I'll have to write it :)
Tim
Tim Moore <·····@herschel.bricoworks.com> writes:
> FWIW, I just encountered someone who didn't like Graham's "ANSI Common
> Lisp" very much. I was surprised as it has such a good reputation here.
> This guy, who's very skilled and experienced in object oriented
> programming and our problem domain, is trying to get up to speed in Lisp;
> he found that "ANSI Common Lisp" just isn't advanced enough to cover the
> stuff we're doing. I'm not sure if there's a book out there for him;
> maybe I'll have to write it :)
FWIW I think that The AMOP (and to a lesser degree OOinCL) is a very
good book for anyone looking for stuff beyond the basics, because it
deals with a complex, real-world system (CLOS/PCL), and gives you both
insights into iterative design and implementation considerations, as
well as real-worldish code. You can find several common CL design and
implementation techniques in the AMOP, in non-contrived contexts. And
this includes non-CLOS aspects of CL as well.
Personally, I got much more out of the AMOP than e.g. On Lisp, mostly
because the latter deals with clever constructs, whereas the former
deals with a well-designed system. I'd welcome more CL books in this
vein, which IMHO we need much more than another introductory book,
where we have at least 4-5 books for different tastes.
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre R. Mai <····@acm.org> http://www.pmsf.de/pmai/
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein
>>>>> "PRM" == Pierre R Mai <····@acm.org> writes:
PRM> ...the former deals with a well-designed system. I'd
PRM> welcome more CL books in this vein, which IMHO we need much
PRM> more than another introductory book, where we have at least
PRM> 4-5 books for different tastes.
Maybe what we need is an edited journal/archive. Often questions come
up here, and the answers have pointers to papers in personal pages (Baker,
KMP, Tim B., some Gabriel stuff comes to my mind apologies to those I
missed) or to usenet postings on Deja.
ACM used to have Lisp Pointers which I believe is gone now, and ALU
has proceedings (but you have to be present to give a talk there), but
maybe we should have something like JAIR on-line possibly through ALU?
Occasionally I talk with lispers who tell me interesting things they
have done, but usually asking "do you have this written up somewhere?"
gets a negative answer. Maybe the existence of a journal of sorts would
motivate people.
Any thoughts?
cheers,
BM
In article <··············@nkapi.internal>,
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> ...
> ACM used to have Lisp Pointers which I believe is gone now, and ALU
> has proceedings (but you have to be present to give a talk there), but
iirc, lisp pointers started outside acm. the first few issues were
sponsered by various organisations (i think the first two were
sponsored by inria and ibm, forgot the sequence), and sigplan stepped
in when the sequence of new editions began to stutter (the enthusiasm
drained away?). considering that at the time the distribution had to
be in print, it might be worthwhile considering whether reviving it
with electronic distribution would be feasible
hs
> ...
> Any thoughts?
>
> cheers,
>
> BM
>
--
Lbh unir whfg ivbyngrq gur Qvtvgny Zvyraavhz Pbclevtug Npg ol oernxvat
gur cebgrpgvba bs pbclevtugrq zngrevny. Vs lbh ner abg n pvgvmra be
erfvqrag bs gur HFN, lbh evfx orvat vzcevfbarq naq uryq jvgubhg onvy
sbe hc gb gjb jrrxf hcba ragel gb gur HFN
(c) Copyright 2001 by Hartmann Schaffer (signature only)
··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes:
> In article <··············@nkapi.internal>,
> Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> > ...
> > ACM used to have Lisp Pointers which I believe is gone now, and ALU
> > has proceedings (but you have to be present to give a talk there), but
>
> iirc, lisp pointers started outside acm. the first few issues were
> sponsered by various organisations (i think the first two were
> sponsored by inria and ibm, forgot the sequence), ...
That's right. The first two volumes, a total of nine issues, preceeded
SIGPLAN SIP status. INRIA was co-sponsor of all but the first, which
was sponsored by IBM. The sponsors included all the usual suspects
(PARC, MCC, TI, DEC, Mitre, Sun, Lucid, and even SIGPLAN).
> considering that at the time the distribution had to
> be in print, it might be worthwhile considering whether reviving it
> with electronic distribution would be feasible
Sure, why not? Any volunteers to be editor? Any volunteers to write
regular columns? ... Anybody? ... Well, maybe that's why not. :-)
Seriously, I don't think the cost of printing and distribution was a
major issue, so there's no obvious benefit to electronic publication.
Getting material from people, however, was a major issue.
-- rar
Bob Riemenschneider <···@coyote.csl.sri.com> writes:
> Seriously, I don't think the cost of printing and distribution was a
> major issue, so there's no obvious benefit to electronic publication.
> Getting material from people, however, was a major issue.
Exactly.
The real problem was that getting material at a synchronized time was
a problem. Some people had stuff they wanted to put out, but rarely
on the same schedule as anyone else.
Maybe at some point something like this will come back. But largely
I think things like this newsgroup offer an adequate replacement. They
get short-term answers to questions. The only other thing is when someone
has a long-winded, more permanent thing to say--and for that I recommend
a web page (which many people maintain, unfettered by the need to synchronize
with others) or a book (which makes money).
[ A secondary problem of the ACM, which caused me not only to stop writing
for them but to renounce my membership, is that we authors of Lisp Pointers
still had to buy a subscription through our membership just to see ourselves
published--they never so much as sent us a courtesy copy. I regard the ACM
as merely an opportunistic publishing house that has a clever scam for getting
free material from authors and not having to pay them, and I have, by
necessity of the ethics pledge they made me sign when I became a member,
canceled my membership because the organization did not seem up to my
ethical standards. (Not to mention various other gripes I had, such
as that I could not unsubscribe from CACM, and was forced to receive paper
I didn't want so they could claim readership they didn't have to their
advertisers.) ]
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> Bob Riemenschneider <···@coyote.csl.sri.com> writes:
>
> > Seriously, I don't think the cost of printing and distribution was a
> > major issue, so there's no obvious benefit to electronic publication.
> > Getting material from people, however, was a major issue.
>
> Exactly.
>
> The real problem was that getting material at a synchronized time was
> a problem. Some people had stuff they wanted to put out, but rarely
> on the same schedule as anyone else.
>
> Maybe at some point something like this will come back. But largely
> I think things like this newsgroup offer an adequate replacement. They
> get short-term answers to questions. The only other thing is when someone
> has a long-winded, more permanent thing to say--and for that I recommend
> a web page (which many people maintain, unfettered by the need to synchronize
> with others) or a book (which makes money).
Well, the xxx archives exist for this kind of purpose; if people have
papers, perhaps they could be submitted to those archives
(xxx.lanl.gov is I believe the canonical host) and announced here;
this, of course, doesn't solve the peer review problem, as physicists
the world over are realizing...
Cheers,
Christophe
--
Jesus College, Cambridge, CB5 8BL +44 1223 510 299
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ (defun pling-dollar
(str schar arg) (first (last +))) (make-dispatch-macro-character #\! t)
(set-dispatch-macro-character #\! #\$ #'pling-dollar)
Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> Well, the xxx archives exist for this kind of purpose; if people have
> papers, perhaps they could be submitted to those archives
> (xxx.lanl.gov is I believe the canonical host) and announced here;
> this, of course, doesn't solve the peer review problem, as physicists
> the world over are realizing...
Well, neither did Lisp Pointers solve this, as anyone who ever watched
how desperate the editors were for content would tell you. As it gets
close to publication deadline, one gets ever more willing to consider
marginal stuff.
I also think something the Internet hits us over the head with, but that
somehow hasn't been taken to heart in terms of organizational mechanisms,
is that peer review is most easily accomplished after-the-fact. We still
try to filter, and I think it's fine for people to wait to read filtered
stuff. But we used to, because of resource cost of publication, have to
screen before publication. Sometimes this meant useful publications were
excluded because of lack of reviewers or because of reviewer prejudice.
In the modern world, there can be multiple sets of reviewers for the same
documents, and those reviewers can earn status by how well they filter in
a way that can be compared (on the same data) to others reviweing the same
material, both objectively and subjectively. So I'd rather go with publish
first and peer review later any day...
I don't think we've forgotten peer review. I just think we haven't
quite gotten to the point where full text search has failed us
spectacularly enough for anyone to be willing to pay what it really costs
to do it right. I think that will come.
>>>>> "KMP" == Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
KMP> ... In the modern world, there
KMP> can be multiple sets of reviewers for the same documents, and
KMP> those reviewers can earn status by how well they filter in a
KMP> way that can be compared (on the same data) to others
KMP> reviweing the same material, both objectively and
KMP> subjectively.
I am not sure about earning status if we take it to mean public fame,
but I think your recognition of comparison of subjective value of the
review or the contribution is important. If reviewer A holds the same
beliefs/values etc. as myself as opposed to B, I would like there to
have the ability to allocate my time for stuff that passed the A filter.
An example would be, say favoring something that KMP thinks is interesting
as opposed to, say, what Larry Wall (of Perl fame) liked. Presumably KMP
would be motivated to take part in something like that even if he
remained anonymous because it works the other way too with people like
myself doing after-the-fact filtering for him. Whether objective good
comes out of this is a different issue, but that shouldn't be too
controversial as long as some sanity can be assumed to exist among the
participants.
KMP> So I'd rather go with publish first and peer
KMP> review later any day...
Yes. A lot of administrative problems (and problems caused by rigid
central control) disappear that way and if the mechanisms are
convenient to use it shpuld work much better.
KMP> I don't think we've forgotten peer review. I just think we
KMP> haven't quite gotten to the point where full text search has
KMP> failed us spectacularly enough for anyone to be willing to
KMP> pay what it really costs to do it right.
Google attempts to do what I alluded to with their popularity metric,
but they aggregate link counts w/o regard to who is doing the linking.
Phoaks.com does attempt to do the same for usenet but delivers nothing
new that cannot be gathered by lurking at a newsgroup for a few weeks.
KMP> I think that will
KMP> come.
I agree, with "that" modified to include what I said above.
cheers,
BM
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > Well, the xxx archives exist for this kind of purpose; if people have
> > papers, perhaps they could be submitted to those archives
> > (xxx.lanl.gov is I believe the canonical host) and announced here;
> > this, of course, doesn't solve the peer review problem, as physicists
> > the world over are realizing...
>
> So I'd rather go with publish first and peer review later any day...
>
Indeed. As an ex-scientist who took part in the anonymous peer-review
process, I heartily concur. This process is slow and open to all sorts
of abuse. What I'd really like to see is some sort of chain of review,
analogous to the web of trust used by PGP. i.e. if a large number of
scientists go to a site and click a button to score a paper between 1
to 10, I can build my own scoring algorithm based on how I trust a
web of known scientists, to see, in agreggate, what this group thought
of a given paper. If they thought poorly of it, or didn't bother to
read it/score it, well, that says it all.
For those who say that that would lead to the equivalent of scientific
nepotism, well, what can I say --- isn't it mostly that way already?
Might as well make the whole thing public...
--
It would be difficult to construe Larry Wall, in article
this as a feature. <·····················@netlabs.com>
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Offtopic: Scientific peer review [was Re: Books: CL and PAIP]
Date:
Message-ID: <sfwzo8wxhja.fsf@world.std.com>
Alain Picard <·······@optushome.com.au> writes:
> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
> > Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> > > Well, the xxx archives exist for this kind of purpose; if people have
> > > papers, perhaps they could be submitted to those archives
> > > (xxx.lanl.gov is I believe the canonical host) and announced here;
> > > this, of course, doesn't solve the peer review problem, as physicists
> > > the world over are realizing...
> >
> > So I'd rather go with publish first and peer review later any day...
>
> Indeed. As an ex-scientist who took part in the anonymous peer-review
> process, I heartily concur. This process is slow and open to all sorts
> of abuse. What I'd really like to see is some sort of chain of review,
> analogous to the web of trust used by PGP. [...]
As long as this could be bypassed by people who wanted anothe theory, this
would be fine by me.
> For those who say that that would lead to the equivalent of scientific
> nepotism, well, what can I say --- isn't it mostly that way already?
> Might as well make the whole thing public...
Sure. The good thing about "public first", though, is that it can survive
changes in political regime. So if you realize at some point that someone
was either outright wrong or conspiring, you have the data there to go back
and right the wrong and continue.
It's very hard for human beings to maintain multiple world-states in their
head and keep track of which world-states rely on which assumptions. But
that's just an artifact of our brains. There's no reason we can't ask more
out of our archiving systems, which are, in the end, bigger than us. Perhaps
in understanding the bootstrapping of intelligence from cells to people to
civilizations, and thinking about whether "civilizations" could contemplate
things that "people" cannot, this would be one inkling of how civilizations
could evolve beyond people in their mechanism, if not also their wisdom.
From: Paul Wallich
Subject: Re: Offtopic: Scientific peer review [was Re: Books: CL and PAIP]
Date:
Message-ID: <pw-1908012137020001@192.168.1.100>
In article <·················@optushome.com.au>, Alain Picard
<·······@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
>> Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>> > Well, the xxx archives exist for this kind of purpose; if people have
>> > papers, perhaps they could be submitted to those archives
>> > (xxx.lanl.gov is I believe the canonical host) and announced here;
>> > this, of course, doesn't solve the peer review problem, as physicists
>> > the world over are realizing...
>>
>> So I'd rather go with publish first and peer review later any day...
>>
>
>Indeed. As an ex-scientist who took part in the anonymous peer-review
>process, I heartily concur. This process is slow and open to all sorts
>of abuse. What I'd really like to see is some sort of chain of review,
>analogous to the web of trust used by PGP. i.e. if a large number of
>scientists go to a site and click a button to score a paper between 1
>to 10, I can build my own scoring algorithm based on how I trust a
>web of known scientists, to see, in agreggate, what this group thought
>of a given paper. If they thought poorly of it, or didn't bother to
>read it/score it, well, that says it all.
>
>For those who say that that would lead to the equivalent of scientific
>nepotism, well, what can I say --- isn't it mostly that way already?
>Might as well make the whole thing public...
It's not so much scientific nepotism that I would worry about in such
cases as the scientific equivalent of protection money. Anyone giving
a less-than-stellar ranking to the papers of certain eminences in a
given field (or their proteges) could quickly find themselve targeted
for retaliation (in peer review, grant application and so forth) unless
they in turn had protectors willing to use similar tactics.
Anonymous peer review is a really bad system except for all the others.
paul