Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!ANDREW.CMU.EDU!dg1v+ From: dg1v+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (David Greene) Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: Re: Why? Message-ID: <19880926055651.7.NICK@INTERLAKEN.LCS.MIT.EDU> Date: 26 Sep 88 05:56:00 GMT Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 55 Approved: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu ---- Forwarded Message Follows ---- Return-path: <@AI.AI.MIT.EDU,@KL.SRI.COM,@PO3.ANDREW.CMU.EDU:dg1v+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU> Received: from AI.AI.MIT.EDU by ZERMATT.LCS.MIT.EDU via CHAOS with SMTP id 195154; 19 Sep 88 10:26:49 EDT Received: from KL.SRI.COM (TCP 1200200002) by AI.AI.MIT.EDU 19 Sep 88 10:32:55 EDT Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu by KL.SRI.COM with TCP; Mon, 19 Sep 88 07:25:14 PDT Received: by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) idfor ailist@kl.sri.com; Mon, 19 Sep 88 10:24:56 EDT Received: via switchmail; Mon, 19 Sep 88 10:24:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from folsom.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 19 Sep 88 10:23:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from folsom.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Mon, 19 Sep 88 10:17:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Version.6.20.N.CUILIB.3.44.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.folsom.andrew.cmu.edu.rt.r3 via MS.5.5.folsom.andrew.cmu.edu.rt_r3; Mon, 19 Sep 88 10:17:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 19 Sep 88 10:17:41 -0400 (EDT) From: David Greene X-Andrew-Message-Size: 1524+0 To: ailist@kl.sri.com Subject: Re: Why? In-Reply-To: References: In markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >The first thing that comes to mind is our current situation >as regards science -- its increasing specialization. Most people will >agree that this is a trend that has gone way too far ... to the extent that >we may have sacrificed global perspective and competence in our >specialists; and further that it is a trend that needs to be reversed. >Yet fewer would dare to suggest that we can overcome the problem. I agree that this is serious and that AI, as an inherently interdisciplinary field, has the potential to pull areas together. However, there is tremendous pressure within the academic community to encourge and reward *focused* efforts in a narrow area, at least until you become a tenured old-sage :-) It's very time consuming to keep up with multiple fields to any real depth but even as you look for synergy you hear your advisor saying, "It won't get published if the the editors don't have a department for it..." Even when there is a department, it is suggested that you remove the excess (other disciplines) to make it more relevent or accessible to the regular readership. I think it's worth the effort, but it would certainly help if it weren't such an uphill struggle. -David ----------------- David Perry Greene GSIA dg1v@andrew.cmu.edu Carnegie Mellon University "You're welcome to use my oppinions, just don't get them all wrinkled."