Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!hci.hw.ac.UK!gilbert From: gilbert@hci.hw.ac.UK (Gilbert Cockton) Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: Re: AI, science, and pseudo-science Message-ID: <108@glenlivet.hci.hw.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 5-Aug-87 08:23:37 EDT Article-I.D.: glenlive.108 Posted: Wed Aug 5 08:23:37 1987 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Aug-87 05:44:00 EDT References: <8707270710.AA05885@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: Gilbert Cockton Distribution: world Organization: Scottish HCI Centre Lines: 41 Approved: ailist@stripe.sri.com In article <8707270710.AA05885@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> mckee@CORWIN.CCS.NORTHEASTERN.EDU writes: a lot, but his go at describing types of not-quite-sciences is interesting. For me, AI should be one of the > >* Interdisciplinary Sciences: Materials Science, Neuroscience > (characterized by their subject matter not yielding coherently > to any single experimental technique or theoretical paradigm.) > My criticism of AI is that most of the workers I meet are pretty ignorant of the CRITICAL TRADITIONS of ESTABLISHED disciplines which can say much about AI's supposed object of study. When AI folk do stop hacking (LISP, algebra or logic - it makes no difference, logic finger and algebra wrist are just as bad as the well known 'computer-bum'), they may do so only to raid a few concepts and 'facts' from some discipline, and then go and abuse them out of sight of the folk who originally developed them and understand their context and deductive limitations. What some of them do to English is even worse :-) >(However, I can't resist throwing in my excuse: programming is fun; > science is hard, often boring, work. Science is far more rewarding, though.) I think the nail's been hit squarely on the head, but to programming we should add amateur philosophy and idealist logic/algebra as other fun pasttimes pursued instead of hard, critical, rigorous argument. I think the major turn-off of AI work can be summed up as a complete lack of candid scholarship. The same is unfortunately true for much applications-driven research in computing. Without reining in AI (or computer applications research) under proper disciplines, I can't really see any prospect for workers developing their critical faculties up to the highest standards of established disciplines. NB - yes there are uncritical, unimaginative automata and disreputable charlatans in all disciplines. But these sorts are not the type who make a DISCIPLINE. AI seems to have few folk who do want it to be a discipline. -- Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Ben Line Building, Edinburgh, EH1 1TN JANET: gilbert@uk.ac.hw.aimmi ARPA: gilbert%aimmi.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ..!{backbone}!aimmi.hw.ac.uk!gilbert