Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!simon
From: simon@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Simon Brooke)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures,comp.ai
Subject: Re: The future of AI [was Re: Time Magazine -- Computers of the Future]
Message-ID: <502@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Apr 88 09:15:47 GMT
References: <8803270154.AA08607@bu-cs.bu.edu> <962@daisy.UUCP> <5789@swan.ulowell.edu> <978@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <445@novavax.UUCP>
Reply-To: simon@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Simon Brooke)
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.
Lines: 55
Keywords: AI, Sociology, manners.
Summary: The manners of the ignorant are not always pleasant
Xref: utzoo comp.society.futures:485 comp.ai:1585
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!simon
From: simon@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Simon Brooke)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures,comp.ai
Subject: Re: The future of AI [was Re: Time Magazine -- Computers of the Future]
Message-ID: <502@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Apr 88 09:15:47 GMT
References: <8803270154.AA08607@bu-cs.bu.edu> <962@daisy.UUCP> <5789@swan.ulowell.edu> <978@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <445@novavax.UUCP>
Reply-To: simon@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Simon Brooke)
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.
Lines: 55
Keywords: AI, Sociology, manners.

In article <445@novavax.UUCP> maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes:
(flaming against an article submitted by Gilbert Cockton)

>	"Rigorous sociology/contemporary anthropology"?  Ha ha ha ha
>ha ha ha ha, &c.  

What do the third and subsequent iterations of the symbol 'ha' add to the
meaning of this statement? Are we to assume the author doubts the rigour
of Sociology, or the contemporary nature of anthropology?

>And some of the most interesting investigations of topics once dominated 
>by the humanities, such as theory of mind, are taking place in AI labs.  

This is, of course, true - some of it is. Just as some of the most
interesting advances in Artificial Intelligence take place in Philosophy
and Linguistics departments. This is what one would expect, after all; for
what is AI but an experimental branch of Philosophy?

>sociologists produce a great deal of nonsense, and indeed the social
>"sciences" in toto are afflicted by conceptual confusion at every
>level.  Ideologues, special interest groups, purveyors of outworn
>dogma (Marxists, Freudians, et alia) continue to plague the social
>sciences in a way that would be almost unimaginable in the sciences,

Gosh! Isn't it nice, now and again, to read the words of someone whose
knowledge of a field is so deep and thorough that they can some it up in
one short paragraph!

It is, of course, true that some embarassingly poor work is published in
Sociology, just as in any other discipline; perhaps indeed there is more
poor sociology, simply because sociology is more difficult to do well than
any other type of study - most of the phenomena of sociology occurs in the
interaction between individuals, and this interaction cannot readily be
accessed by an observer who is not party to the interaction. Yet if you
are part of the interaction, it will not proceed as it would with someone
else...

Again, sociological investigation, because it looks at us in a 
rigorous way which we are not used to, often leads to conclusions which 
seem counter-intuitive - they cut through our self-deceits and hypocrisies.
So we prefer to abuse the messenger rather than listen to the message.

For the rest:

He who knows not an knows not he knows not......

A dictum which I will conveniently forget next time I feel like shooting
my mouth off.

** Simon Brooke *********************************************************
*  e-mail : simon@uk.ac.lancs.comp                                      * 
*  surface: Dept of Computing, University of Lancaster,  LA 1 4 YW, UK. *
*                                                                       *
*  Thought for today: Most prologs chew everything very slowly anyway,  * 
***just being polite I guess*********************************************