Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Generic and habitual sentences are of great concern in computational linguistics.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Generic sentences resist truth-conditional formalization because their truth values are indeterminate relative to counterexamples (Carlson & Pelletier 1995).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Computational systems require determinate input-output mappings, making generics structurally ill-suited as knowledge base primitives.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
The meaning of generics is context-dependent and normatively loaded in ways that encode social bias rather than world knowledge (Leslie 2008).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Systematically funneling generic sentences into formal knowledge bases would therefore propagate and entrench culturally contingent stereotypes as objective facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Much of people's general knowledge about the world is most naturally expressed in the form of generic and habitual sentences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Systematic interpretation of generic and habitual sentences would provide a way of funneling large amounts of knowledge into formal knowledge bases from sources such as lexicons, encyclopedias, and crowd-sourced collections.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.