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: AI a proper science? - The Cockton debate
Message-ID: <2758@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 10 Apr 89 08:47:07 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> <330@edai.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 24

In article <330@edai.ed.ac.uk> cam@edai (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>In article <2705@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk
>common complaint, especially from those with a strong background in a
>mature science which can afford to be dogmatic about its paradigms (such
>as CS :-) :-)), is that "there are too many competing theories in AI".
>They want to know "the truth", and get upset by being asked to consider
>(as yet) undecidable alternatives, exercise judgement, master competing
>arguments, etc..

Perhaps they were expecting to learn some practical computing skills,
and were disappointed.  I don't think they come on the course
expecting to have to read and analyse.

If you were teaching psychology or philosophy (under)grads, the
complaints might change.  They might ask for the range of competing
arguments to be expanded.

I'd be interested in pointers to the holy wars in Strong AI.  
I'm only aware of logicists v. KBS v. connectionism.  This hardly
covers the full range of theories of 'mind', which in turn are but a
subset of theories of human agency/behaviour.
-- 
Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science,  The University, Glasgow
	gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert