Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!aiag.DEC.COM!billmers
From: billmers@aiag.DEC.COM.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V5 #171
Message-ID: <8707072223.AA26599@decwrl.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 7-Jul-87 11:29:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.8707072223.AA26599
Posted: Tue Jul  7 11:29:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Jul-87 13:46:00 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 32
Approved: ailist@stripe.sri.com


Don Norman writes that "AI will contribute to the A, but will not
contribute to the I unless and until it becomes a science...".

Alas, since physics is a science and mathematics is not one, I guess the
latter cannot help contribute to the former unless and until mathematicians
develop an appreciation for the experimental methods of science. Ironic
that throughout history mathematics has been called the queen of sciences
(except, of course, by Prof. Norman).

Indeed, physics is a case in point. There are experimental physicists, but
there are also theoretical ones who formulate, posulate and hypothesize
about things they cannot measure or observe. Are these men not scientists?
And there are those who observe and measure that which has no theoretical
foundation (astrologists hypothesize about people's fortunes; would any
amount of experimentation turn astrology into a science?). I believe the
mix between theoretical underpinnings and scientific method makes for
science. The line is not hard and fast.

By my definition, AI has the right attributes to make it a science. There
are theoretically underpinnings in several domains (cognitive science,
theory of computation, information theory, neurobiology...) and yes, even an
experimental nature. Researchers postulate theories (of representation, of
implementation) but virtually every Ph.D. thesis also builds a working
program to test the theory.

If AI researchers seem to be weak in the disciplines of the scientific
method I submit it is because the phenomena they are trying to understand
are far more complex and elusive of definition that that of most science. 
This is not a reason to deny AI the title of science, but rather a reason
to increase our efforts to understand the field. With this understanding
will come an increasingly visible scientific discipline.