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?
Message-ID: <2757@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 10 Apr 89 08:40:53 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> <18261@glacier.STANFORD.EDU>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 14

In article <18261@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes:
>
>      Proper science has recourse to experiment to decide issues
>      AI needs a sound experimental basis.  
>
>
Before rushing in, perhaps we could discuss the nature of acceptable
and convincing experiments in cognitive science.

They are not easy to design, are rarely designed, and involve more than
making something and then shouting that it's doing something.
-- 
Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science,  The University, Glasgow
	gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert