Q

[keith woodward]

>Ben wrote:

>This algorithm would have to emerge from something like cognitive science,
>yes?  In the latest issue of _Philosophy and Literature_ there is an
>article called "Cognitive Science and the Future of Literary Studies".
>This article seems to lend some credence to such things as stylometry, or
>at least suggests a possible trend in such directions.  Personally, I
>can't help thinking that stylometry is to literary theory as craniology is
>to neurology, but then again I'm no authority on the matter either.

I think your intuition is probably right on.  Stylometry is like a literary
calculator, but I've always heard that it's second-leg to a good scholar in
the given area.  The irony is that: the scholar is dubious because of
potential creduality, the computer is dubious it can't intuit/feel certain
potentially valid distinctions (mood, for example).  The human isn't
computer enough and the computer isn't human enough to make any final,
definative claims regarding authorship.  Besides, what, short of Pynchon's
admittal of penning of the Tinasky letters (say), is very final and
definative about any claim made about these questionable texts?

Keith W