Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert
From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Is AI a proper science? The Cockton debate.
Message-ID: <2745@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 7 Apr 89 09:03:47 GMT
References: <Mar.4.00.45.52.1989.4435@elbereth.rutgers.edu> <2691@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <813@htsa.uucp> <2705@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <3684@mit-amt> <2722@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <323@edai.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 23

In article <323@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>We wouldn't want AI to fall into the horrible trap of physics envy
>which so disfigured psychology, would we?  - "Look Ma, numbers and
>equations, I'm doing Real Science now!"

The intriguing thing about logical positivism is that it never
exists in its ideal sythnesis.  One gets logic (the mathematicians in
humanists clothing) or positivism (physicists in humanists's clothing),
but never both together.

Your question is rhetorical - I have no admiration for the crude
empiricism of the failed natural scientists who disfigured psychology.
Nor are many people impressed by the mathematicians of cognitivie
science who come equally unprepared, gauche and unenlightened to the
new psychology of jolly clever ideas.

Yes, behaviourism was bad, but the logical and mathematical fetishism
of much cognitive science is far far worse.  At least we had those
nice little p < 0.05s in experimental psychology.  The alpha centauri
mathematical school has no time for truth or margins of error.
-- 
Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science,  The University, Glasgow
	gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert