Disambiguating: The cited Wikipedia article was the book "Perceptrons"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptrons_(book) In particular note how Wikipedia's editors have made it look as though the "scholars" have shown Minsky had no deleterious effect on the field -- that it was all fabricated spin put on by proponents of neural nets. For the real history, get the book "Talking Nets: An Oral History of Neural Networks" that interviews the top 17 participants in the resurrection of the field then (mid '90s) alive. Not a single apologist for Minsky's behavior and a number of detailed, eye-witness accounts of his intended sabotage of the field are recounted. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 3:11 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > One of the more interesting episodes in science that bears on the cold > fusion controversy is the history of "perceptrons" which later became known > as "artificial neural nets". > > Not only was a prominent member of the establishment able to suppress > funding to the field through a bogus critique, thereby guaranteeing funding > in his own area for approximately 2 decades, but when the field was finally > vindicated, the establishment went on an absolutely incredible cover-up of > his (and therefore its) role in the suppression. I was there at the second > neural networks conference to witness the establishment's avatar rising to > give the keynote speech as the guest of "honor". > > Today you can read the Wikipedia article on "perceptrons" and see what the > future may have in store for the likes of Huzinga, et al if cold fusion is > vindicated. > >
