Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ames!elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!wlbr!scgvaxd!trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!smoliar
From: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Definition of science and of scientific method.
Message-ID: <3337@venera.isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 3-Aug-87 18:18:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: venera.3337
Posted: Mon Aug  3 18:18:10 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Aug-87 04:34:53 EDT
References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM>
Sender: daemon@venera.isi.edu
Reply-To: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar)
Organization: Information Sciences Institute
Lines: 38
Summary: attempt to extricate foot from mouth

In article <3240@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> rjf@ukc.ac.uk (Robin Faichney) writes:
>
>Why spoil a clear and fascinating exposition of the history of
>philosophy with an attempt to start a "My discipline's better than your's"
>controversy. If the humanities are characterised by their attitude to man,
>what would they do if they gave that up? Shouldn't serious people try to
>deal with issues which (in principle, not just because we haven't found
>the formula yet) require value judgements, as well as matters of fact?
>Do you really believe that all subjectivity is wrong, and should be
>discarded without a second thought? Can't we use intellect to explore
>and understand our feelings from the inside, instead of always trying to
>explain them away, from the outside?
>
MEA MAXIMA CULPA!  I'm afraid I let my comments get out of hand after a
somewhat unpleasant run-in with a philosopher, and I should not have let
that experience color this discussion.  I certainly do not believe that
all subjectivity is wrong, but I have been wrestling with why the two
cultures gulf should be as problematic as it is.  Perhaps the problem
arises from attempts to apply subjective attitudes to objective reasoning
and vice versa.  Thus, an epistemologist may very well object if someone
in artificial intelligence attempts to interpret his work in terms of
mechanistic models of human thought.  His objection may take the form
that it is precisely the NON-mechanistic elements of such thought that
concern him, and he may even resent the intrusion of artificial intelligence.
This will inevitably lead to an exchange which will yield more heat than
light . . . all because a practicioner of artificial intelligence was trying
to interpret the epistemologists arguments in terms he could grasp.  (This
is all a thinly-veiled attempt to render a past experience in an unbiased
manner . . . as if anyone could really do that!)

>What is needed, to narrow the gulf between the two cultures, is people
>who appreciate both, for their different aims and achievements. Not a
>blind and bland insistence that objectivity (or subjectivity) will save
>the universe.

I agree entirely.  Any thoughts as to how our current approach to education
might be ammended to encourage such mutual appreciation would be worthy of
appreciation in its own right.