In article <3B698465.1090509@bellatlantic.net>, <predictr@bellatlantic.net> wrote:> Radford Neal wrote: > "The whole point of constructing a mathematical formalism for inference > is to produce conclusions or decisions that are more reliable than would > be produced by unaided human intuition."
> To me, this is the crux of the matter. I don't know about the fine > point that this statement was in reference to, but I think it expresses > quite well what I think of as the "engineer's perspective". There is > someone who posts frequently online whose signature includes something > to the effect that "engineering is making what you want out of what you > can get", which seems to be our lot in life as entities travelling an > informationally imperfect world.
<My general question to critics of fuzzy logic in general is: what is <wrong with using fuzzy logic if it provides useful results? Please note <that I did not write "optimal" or "theoretically satisfying" results. <While I have not studied these issues obsessively, I do tend to agree <with the fuzzy critics' general complaint that too much has been made of <fuzzy logic. On the other hand, people have built fuzzy systems that <work, that is, which solve the problems for which they were intended. <To me, it seems that issues like whether they could have been built <using some other formalism (be it probability or somthing else) are less <important than issues of economy and effectiveness. Tell me how to get results. How does fuzzy logic contribute to getting a consistent scheme of action? Expectation derived from probability does this. Consistent action has been shown to force probability. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558