Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!mit-amt!bc
From: bc@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (bill coderre and his pets)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Who else isn't a science?
Summary: Only what he says is science, OK?
Message-ID: <2663@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>
Date: 27 Jun 88 00:18:24 GMT
References: <13100@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <3c84f2a9.224b@apollo.uucp> <10785@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <34227@linus.UUCP> <11387@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: bc@media-lab.media.mit.edu (bill coderre and his pets)
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA
Lines: 64

In article <11387@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
>Anyway, let me recommend the following works by neurophysiologists:
(references)

>These researchers start by looking at *real* brains, *real* EEGs, they
>work with what is known about *real* biological systems, and derive very
>intriguing connectionist-like models.  To me, *this* is science.

And working in the other direction is not SCIENCE? Oh please...

>CAS & WJF have developed a rudimentary chaotic model based on the study
>of olfactory bulb EEGs in rabbits.  They hooked together actual ODEs with
>actual parameters that describe actual rabbit brains, and get chaotic EEG
>like results.

There is still much that is not understood about how neurons work.
Practically nothing is known about how structures of neurons work. In
50 years, maybe we will have a better idea. In the mean time,
modelling incomplete and incorrect physical data is risky at best. In
the mean time, synthesizing models is just as useful.

>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>In article <2618@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, bc@mit-amt (bill coderre) writes:
>>Oh boy. Just wonderful. We have people who have never done AI arguing
>>about whether or not it is a science [...]

>We've also got what I think a lot of people who've never studied the
>philosophy of science here too.  Join the crowd.

I took a course from Kuhn. Speak for youself, chum.

>>May I also inform the above participants that a MAJORITY of AI
>>research is centered around some of the following:
>>[a list of topics]
>Which sure sounded like programming/engineering to me.

Oh excuse me. They're not SCIENCE. Oh my. Well, we can't go studying
THAT.

>>		   As it happens, I am doing simulations of animal
>>behavior using Society of Mind theories. So I do lots of learning and
>>knowledge acquisition.
>Well good for you!  But are you doing SCIENCE?  As in:
>If your simulations have only the slightest relevance to ethology, is your
>advisor going to tell you to chuck everything and try again?  I doubt it.

So sorry to disappoint you. My coworkers and I are modelling real,
observable behavior, drawn from fish and ants. We have colleagues at
the New England Aquarium and Harvard (Bert Holldobler).

Marvin Minsky, our advisor, warns that we should not get "stuck" in
closely reproducing behavior, much as it makes no sense for us to
model the chemistry of the organism to implement its behavior (and
considering that ants are almost entirely smell-driven, this is not a
trite statement!).

The bottom line is that it is unimportant for us to argue whether or
not this or that is Real Science (TM).

What is important is for us to create new knowledge either
analytically (which you endorse) OR SYNTHETICALLY (which is just as
much SCIENCE as the other).

Just go ask Kuhn..........................................mr bc
				   heart full of salsa jalapena