Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!emory!gatech!mcnc!ncsuvx!news
From: fostel@eos.ncsu.edu (Gary Fostel)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Emergent Properties
Keywords: chaos, science, prediction
Message-ID: <1990Nov7.225749.1195@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 90 22:57:49 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> <1990Oct31.001104.22908@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <3413@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: 75

Malcom said (in reference to my lack of knowledge of Lakatos):

   Imre Lakatos, and since his collected works (he died young) were
   sufficiently popular to appear in a paperback edition (1980), I'm
   suprised to find anyone professsing familiarity with philosophy of
   science who is not aware of his work. 

Well, I will continue to profess familiarity with the philosphy of
science ... as to particulars, it would seem that Lakatos did not write
what he wrote until after I had studied philsophy so perhaps that is
why I was not exposed to him.  Given the tenor of the thinking of the
people who I studied philsophy under, I suspect they still do not pay
a lot of heed to his writings.  I recently went to a lecture by Chomsky
(one of those guy who failed to teach me about Lakatos :-) and he does
not seem to have adapted a new view of "science".  AI is not one, if
you listen to him, or to be precise, it is not a "natural science".

I think what happenned after WW II is that "science" was redefined 
and Lakatos (and many others for sure) therefor stepped in to provide
a new philosophy of what-they-chose-to-call-science.  Malcom also added:
 
   Here at Edinburgh (and at Sussex too),
   we think it sufficiently important that we even run courses in it for
   our AI students! (Yup, we teach them about Lakatos).

Like I said before ... it shows. (:-)

-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   

Some time back Malcolm asked me if

   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.

To which I answered that as posed the question seemed:

   to be a variation on the "When did I stop beating my wife"
   classic.  The realative "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.)

It seemed the right answer given the way the question was asked.  Not
surprisingly, he was disappointed with my answer and retorted:

   Well, I already knew that's how you felt about it, but I don't think the
   relative size and scope of the disciplines has much to do with the point
   of principle involved. You haven't answered my question, you have merely
   re-iterated your opinion.

I'm likely to once again "merely" give my opinion.  I have a somewhat higher
opinion of my opinion tho'.  The relative size and scope are indeed a red
herring, but it was not I who raised it -- it was implicit in the original
loaded question.   My answer to valid question lurking here, posed
in a non-pejoritive manner as : What is the relationship between AI and 
Computer Science, is that there is clearly a non-zero intersection, there
is clearly material in each that does not belong in the other, and anything
more than that requires me to try to define two things that are not at all
well defined.  At risk of "merely giving my opinion" I think CS is the more
fundamental and AI the more applied, but much of AI is not applied CS but
application of other fields, such as logic, linguistics, perception, etc, that
are clearly not part of the foundation of CS.  Depending on ones definition
of CS and AI, this may seem reasonable or ludicrous. I am using my own defs.
(And no, I am not going to try to provide them on this newsgroup.)

I'll accept that I lost the bet on Lakatos ... I was guessing he was a 1950's
or early 60's guy at latest and it seems I missed by a deacade.  I'll buy! (But
I hope the selected variety is not too much like Guiness ...) Wish we
could meet and conduct this agument with the needed lubrication to hold
down the friction!


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