Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!emory!gatech!ncsuvx!news
From: fostel@eos.ncsu.edu (Gary Fostel)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Emergent Properties
Keywords: chaos, science, prediction
Message-ID: <1990Oct31.001104.22908@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Date: 31 Oct 90 00:11:04 GMT
References: <1990Oct12.214636.7945@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <30@tdatirv.UUCP> <1990Oct19.201604.7280@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <3369@aipna.ed.ac.uk> <1990Oct26.214354.11063@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <3383@aipna.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: fostel@eos.ncsu.edu (Gary Fostel)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Lines: 65


In previous notes, I said lot of things, mainly supporting the value of a
traditional view of what is or is not "science".  Malcolm, at Edinburgh,
said many things defending the relatively looser (flexible?) view of
what is or is not science.  These notes will grow in size exponetially
if I try to requote all the place he quoted me and his comments and then
add my comments. 

Apparently I'm either a Humean (close enough to "human" that I like it), 
or a Baconian, (a bit to porcine) and maybe even a Popperian (is this
a reference to the Marvel Omniverse Planet?)  Nor was I able to recognize
the Lakatosian underpinnings of Malcolm's opinions.  (I believe all of this
was my punishment for suggesting that a good grounding in the Philosophy
of Science would help people doing AI work.)  I don't recognize Lakatose,
but I'll bet a pint (if I ever make it to Edinburgh or vice versa) that he or
she did their writing and thinking around the time of WW II or just afterward
when supposed intellectual underpinnings were created to support the rise
of the "soft" sciences.  

Malcolm suggests that it was a narrow minded view of science that caused
psychologists to "nearly flush their discipline down the toilet in a spasm 
of physics envy."  (wonderful mixed metaphores there:-)  I think the blame 
belongs not to those who tried to maintain a coherent definition of science, 
but to the psychologists who were insecure about their methods and results.
Historically, this was a time when "science", especially physics,  was
in full bloom having just helped win the war,  and there was plenty of envy
in other fields.

Malcolm reveals the same chip-on-the-shoulder attitude when he asks about the
shortcommings of "a view of the scientific method so narrowly dominated
by the particular practices of a few sciences as to condemn those too
different to the status of non-sciences?"  Well, first of all, it is not
restricted to the practises of a few sciences, but there are a few fields of
enquiry in which the methods happen to be "scientific".  He begs the question
in his statement of it.  But the real point is that not being a science is
not "condemning" anything.  It just means it is not a science.  Lawyers are
not troubled to be in a non-scientific field, nor are doctors, artists, 
engineers and a great many other respectable people.  What is so bad about
not being a science? 

This has gotten too long again, but Malcolm asked me two specific questions
which I will address, namely do I believe: 

   that AI is _properly_ a part of Computer Science [he continued] then
   I'd be interested to hear why.  For my part I think considering AI to be
   a branch of CS is as silly as considering Astronomy to be a branch of
   Optics.

and 

   that there are matters-of-fact in the
   Universe to the discovery of which other methods than the scientific are
   best fitted? 

The first seems to be a variation on the "When did I stop beating my wife"
classic.  The realtive "size" and "scope" of astronomy and optics as the 
question is posed is absurd and arguably insulting to astronomers and by
analogy, to Computer "Scientists".  (Also not a science.)  The second is
not so crudely baited a hook, and much depends on what a "matter of fact" 
is, but I'll bite and claim that Mathematics is an example where matters
of fact are discovered by non-scientific means.  Are there other examples?
Well, yes ... for example ... AI ....    (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

----GaryFostel----                     Department of Computer Stuff
                                       North Carolina State University