Added stubs for missing chapters, new diagram for family tree

doc/Experience.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# Experience
+
+{Not yet written. To cover an evaluation of the Clojure Wildwood library, when it works, and what I can learn from it going forward}

doc/History.md

@@ -4,9 +4,11 @@
 
 The object of this chapter is to  describe and discuss the development of Expert System  explanations from the beginning' to the most recent systems. The  argument which I will try to advance is that development has been  continuously driven by the perceived inadequacy of the  explanations given; and that, while many ad hoc, and some  principled, approaches have been tried, no really adequate  explanation system has emerged. Further, I will claim that, as  some of the later and more principled explanation systems  accurately model the accounts of explanation advanced in current  philosophy, the philosophical understanding of explanation is  itself inadequate.
 
+{I ought to add to this chapter to give some overview of what's happened since 1990, and look at explanations of neural network decisions, because that will help in later parts/chapters of Part One}
+
 ## Family Tree  of Systems discussed
 
-(diagram here)|
+![Family tree](../img/family-tree.svg)
 
 Chronology relates to publication,  and not to implementation. Links are shown where system designers  acknowledge influence, or where family resemblance between  systems is extremely obvious. In a small field like this, it is  reasonably (but not absolutely) safe to assume that major  practitioners are up to date with the current  literature.
 
@@ -123,7 +125,7 @@ The HOW query, by contrast,  operates on a history list, and requires, as argume
 
 Some numbered statements, eg (5.0)  below, do not appear to be 'test parts' of any rule. It is not  made clear what the effect of asking 'WHY [5.0]' would  be.
 
-####= Example,  user input in bold:
+##### Example,  user input prefixed with '**' prompt:
 
     Where is the suspected portal  of entry of organism-1 into this sterile site?
 
@@ -157,7 +159,7 @@ Some numbered statements, eg (5.0)  below, do not appear to be 'test parts' of a
 
     [4.0] At that point Rule 021  was being used.
 
-    **HOW [4.0] 
+    ** HOW [4.0] 
 
     [I.e., how was Rule 021  used?]
 
@@ -608,7 +610,7 @@ The strategy used is described as  less ambitious than schemes which involve con
 
 Barr, A & Feigenbaum, E A: The  Handbook of 'Artificial Intelligence, Pitman, 82,  especially articles VII B,  TEIRESIAS, and VIII B1, MYCIN
 
-Brooke, S: Interactive Graphical  Representation of Knowledge: in Proceedings of the Alvey KBS Club  SIG on Explanation second workshop, 87
+Brooke, S: Interactive Graphical  Representation of Knowledge: in Proceedings of the Alvey KBS Club  SIG on Explanation second workshop, 87 {have this}
 
 Buchanan, B, Sutherland, G, &  Feigenbaum, EA; Heuristic Dendral: a program for generating  explanatory hypotheses in organic chemistry: in Meltzer & Michie,  eds, Machine Intelligence 4: Edinburgh University Press,  1969;
 
@@ -630,7 +632,7 @@ Mott, P & Brooke, S: A Graphical  Inference Mechanism: in Expert Systems iv,
 
 Pople, H E: The Formation of  Composite Hypotheses in Diagnostic Problem Solving - an Exercise  in Synthetic Reasoning in Papers presented at the 5th  International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, MIT,  1977
 
-Swartout, W: A Digitalis Therapy  Advisor with Explanations: in Proceedings of the 5th  International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, MIT,  1977
+Swartout, W: A Digitalis Therapy  Advisor with Explanations: in Proceedings of the 5th  International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, MIT,  1977 {hav this}
 
 Swartout, W R: XPLAIN: a System  for Creating and Explaining Expert Consulting Programs: in  Artificial Intelligence 21, 1983
 

doc/Implementing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# Implementing
+
+{not yet written. To cover the actual structure of the Clojure Wildwood library, as I do it}

doc/Manifesto.md

@@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
-Manifesto
-=========
+# Manifesto
 
 Machine inference – automated reasoning, the core of what gets called
 Artificial Intellegence – has ab initio been based on the assumption
@@ -33,8 +32,7 @@ persuade, not to inform but to convince. This thesis succeeds not if in
 some arid, clockwork, mechanical sense I am right, but if, having read
 it, you believe that I am.
 
-On inference and explanation
-----------------------------
+## On inference and explanation
 
 I wrote the first draft of this thesis thirty two years ago. In that
 draft I was concerned with the very poor explanations that mechanised

doc/PredicateSubtext.md

@@ -1,10 +1,9 @@
-On the subtext of a predicate
------------------------------
+# On the subtext of a predicate
 
 Predicates are not atomic. They do not come single spies, but freighted
 with battalions of inferable subtexts. Suppose Anthony says
 
-Brutus killed Caesar in Rome during the ides of March
+    Brutus killed Caesar in Rome during the ides of March
 
 I learn more than just that 'Brutus killed Caesar in Rome during the
 ides of March'. I also learn that
@@ -16,7 +15,7 @@ ides of March'. I also learn that
 
 Suppose Drusilla now says
 
-E killed Caesar in Rome during the ides of March
+    Longus killed Caesar in Rome during the ides of March
 
 this casts doubt on Anthony's primary claim, and on the belief that
 Brutus is a killer; but it reinforces the beliefs that
@@ -27,7 +26,7 @@ Brutus is a killer; but it reinforces the beliefs that
 
 If Falco then says
 
-No, I heard from Gaius that it happened in April
+    No, I heard from Gaius that it happened in April
 
 the beliefs that
 

doc/Reimagining.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# Reimagining
+
+{not yet written. To cover development of the Clojure Wildwood library, and the thinking and design which develops as I do it}

doc/intro.md

@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
-## Introduction to Wildwood
+# Introduction to Wildwood
 
 I started building Wildwood nearly forty years ago on InterLisp-D workstations.
 Then, because of changing academic projects, I lost access to those machines,
 and the project was effectively abandoned. But, I've kept thinking about it; it
 has cool ideas.
 
-### Explicable inference
+## Explicable inference
 
 Wildwood was a follow on from ideas developed in Arboretum, an inference system
 based on a novel propositional logic using defaults. Arboretum was documented in
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ This explicability was, I felt, a key value. Wildwood, while being able to infer
 over much broader and more messy domains, should be at least as transparent
 and easy to understand as Arboretum.
 
-### Game theoretic reasoning
+## Game theoretic reasoning
 
 The insight which is central to the design of Wildwood is that human argument
 does not seek to preserve truth, it seeks to be hegemonic: to persuade the
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Consequently, an inference process should be a set of at least two arguing
 processes, each of whom takes a different initial view and seeks to defend it
 using a system of legal moves.
 
-### Against truth
+## Against truth
 
 Wildwood was originally intended to be a part of my (unfinished) thesis,
 [Against Truth](AgainstTruth.html), which is included in this archive for