Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!alberta!auvax!charlesv
From: charlesv@auvax.UUCP (Charles van Duren)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: The future of AI
Summary: science as faith
Message-ID: <672@auvax.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jun 88 15:33:14 GMT
References: <48.22A3B84F@isishq.UUCP> <4347@killer.UUCP>
Organization: Athabasca U., Alberta, Canada
Lines: 86

In article <4347@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes:

> in article <48.22A3B84F@isishq.UUCP>, doug@isishq.UUCP (Doug Thompson) says:

> 
> Science asserts the exact opposite: That everything can be explained, that
> everything can be modelled, and that the way to gain knowledge is to seek
> these explanations and models.
> 
> Religion, on the other hand, is completely the opposite. Religion asserts that
> there are things that cannot be explained, that some things are beyond
> comprehension, and to seek explanation is to lose the faith.
> 
> In other words, your statements imply that you are a member, unwittingly or
> no, of a religion whose basic tenate is that there is at least one thing in
                                ^^^^^^
> the universe (the human mind) which cannot be explained. Just as other
> religions have as their basic tenate that the one unexplainable thing is
> "God." 

Where to begin. Your posting leaves me with the desire to write tomes on
the incredible myopia of (much) of the AI community, and of practically
all of the advocates of the scientific method. The scientific method is
a religion. It is circular to argue that the scientific method has more
merit or truth or whatever because its effectiveness can be demonstrated
(by the scientific method, of course). Don't mistake me. I am not denying
the value of the scientific method. All I am saying is that, as a method,
it is only a few centuries old, so let us keep it in perspective.

> There has been much scientific research into the areas that you mention. In
> many of them, we do have some knowledge of the evolution of various social
> more's from ancient times to the present. Almost invariably, the root cause is
  ^^^^^^
> some behavior which, at that time, had some positive survival value.
> 

How narrow and impoverished your view of life must be!

> An assertation that such behaviors cannot be scientifically explained is thus
     ^^^^^^^^^^^
> contradicted by the fact that we have sciences called History, Anthropology,
> Sociology, and Psychology. 
> 

Attempts, with indifferent success. Let's not get carried away. Sane persons
will integrate the knowledge gained from these endeavours in their world-view,
but a pinch of salt is recommended.

> Here is where I become certain that you are advocating a certain set of
> religious beliefs (commonly called "New Age", I believe). As I said before,
> the whole underpinning of science is that the world can be explained. That
> approach has yielded every scientific advance in the world today, from the
> wheat upon your table (a scientifically-bread hybrid, high yield), to the car
> you drive to work. 

These are _physical_ phenomena. Also, the wheel was invented sometime before
the scientific method, so don't generalize about the scientific method.

Isn't it convenient to be able to label another person's views and dispose
of them so easily.

> (that there are things that cannot be explained, and to search is to lose your
> faith), has yielded no results at all besides innumerable books full of moral
> advice that everybody seems to ignore.

Allow me to say it. What bullshit. You generalize from insufficient, no,
non-existent data or experience (a scientific no-no). For many people of
faith, the search never stops. For many others, the search (and I don't
mean one limited by the rules of scientific inquiry) _is_ the faith.

> The stumbling blocks to AI are much more mundane:  the
> large bulk and limited computing power of today's computers, providing enough
> input devices to provide a suitable store of memories upon which to operate,
> etc. 
> 
Yea, yea, I've heard it all before. Technology will provide the answers for
the problems of technology. Let me reiterate. I do not expect that my views
will have any effect on your thinking. I would love to have the time to
develop them more fully for you, but that will have to wait. The scientific
method, applied to what is _human_ (yes, I do believe that we are different
from machines), leads to a critically impoverished view of our lives and
futures. If you believe that we are mere machines, or that our behaviour
can be explained in mechanistic terms, I will fight you on the beaches, etc.,
because this is an unacceptable invasion of my very human life.

Charles van Duren (human)