Xref: utzoo comp.society.futures:488 comp.ai:1588 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!uflorida!novavax!maddoxt From: maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures,comp.ai Subject: Social science gibber [Was Re: Various Future of AI Message-ID: <457@novavax.UUCP> Date: 30 Apr 88 16:37:20 GMT Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL Lines: 101 Summary: Here we have a prime specimen of the species Expires: References: <8803270154.AA08607@bu-cs.bu.edu> <962@daisy.UUCP> <5789@swan.ulowell.edu> <978@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <445@novavax.UUCP> <502@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk> Sender: Reply-To: maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida Keywords: AI, Sociology, manners. In article <502@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk> simon@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Simon Brooke) writes: >In article <445@novavax.UUCP> maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes: > >> "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? Yeah, I think you could assume both, pal. Repeated "ha"s added for emphasis, in case some lamebrain (sociologist? if the shoe fits . . . ) wandered through and needed help. >>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? "AI but an experimental branch of Philosophy," eh? Let's see, now: according to that view, I believe *every* branch of what we usually call science could be construed in this way . . . or not. In short, the statement is almost perfectly empty. Or maybe the secret is in the use of the word "Philosophy." That must be a special variant of common or run-of-the-mill "philosophy," capitalized for occult reasons known only to its initiates. Also, I have no quarrel with these "most interesting advances" that are coming out of philosophy and linguistic departments. Philosophy and linguistics, you might notice, *not* sociology. Let's read on. He's quoting me now: >>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, Then he returns to his own lovely prose: >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! "Some it up in one short paragraph"? No, really, I can't "some" it up; don't even know what doing so means. However, if you are trying in your inept fashion to say, "sum it up," thanks. I thought it was a pretty good paragraph myself. >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... We're told "most of the phenomena . . . occurs" [subject-verb agreement], further that "this interaction cannot readily be accessed by an observer" [unnecessary jargon borrowed from another field and used for the appearance of scientific rigor]. I guarantee it, this guy *must* be a social scientist, sociologist or not. >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. "Sociological investigation . . . looks at us in a rigorous way which we are not used to," the man says. On his evidence, it's through a glass darkly, which, alas, we are all quite used to. The notion of sociology as a bringer of ugly truths is particularly amusing, though, and I thank him for it. I should add that I felt some remorse for my slap at sociology, because the essential plight of the social sciences is quite desperate. However, when I read the message quoted above, my remorse evaporated. I would simply add that many sociologists, whatever the ultimate value of their work, *can* read, write, and think. Also, present polemics aside, my original diatribe came as a response to a particularly self-satisfied posting from (apparently) a sociologist attacking AI research as uninformed, puerile, &c. It seemed (and seems) to me that anyone in such an inherently weak field should be rather careful in his criticism: he's in the position of a man throwing bricks at passers-by through his own front window. So let me reiterate: AI research produces valuable and interesting work; sociology produces much, much less.