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) id  for 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."