About your main point: I am generally in agreement with you. Scientists generally model the human belief and behavior as some sort of formal-logic based symbol manipulator, with the axioms derived via induction. I think it is a fair approximation for broad predictions, but far from an exact model. I am really not sure how humans think, except that most human thinking seems to be intuitive and inexact, with no one checking for soundness or consistency. If I had to bet, I'd say it is some sort of massive artificial neural network, but I don't have any clear thoughts on this. 
 
Also, ambiguity in thinking is very useful for getting along in the real world. Following all premises to logical conclusions is the sure recipe to becoming a social misfit.

Babur was also a pederast. I remember reading a poem he wrote about a boy lover of his. I doubt that is okay in Islam.

I work in supervised learning, but I hadn't heard of free lunch learning. Some beautiful ideas there. Thanks!

"Oh, geez. Can he solve the problem of there not being any robots that can wash dishes and give backrubs? Seriously. No: Because you know the guy who eventually does that is going to have an IQ in the 135-140 range." 
 
Its not as simple as that. Many of the tools that engineers use everyday were developed by mathematicians and scientists with absolutely no interest in practical problems. Where would robotics be without formal logic or Markov decision processes? 
 
I don't want to start a scientist vs engineer debate. Both are equally necessary. Mathematical prodigies are rares, so in a way more necessary.

Isn't less than six months also less than one year?