rpw3@fortune.UUCP (12/15/83)
#R:sdcsvax:-8400:fortune:21500002:000:998
fortune!rpw3 Dec 14 19:15:00 1983
I have to throw my two bits in:
The essence of science is "prediction". The missing steps in the classic
paradigm of hypothesis-experiment-analysis- presented above is
that "hypothesis" should be read "theory-prediction-"
That is, no matter how well the hypothesis explains the current data, it
can only be tested on data that has NOT YET BEEN TAKEN.
Any sufficiently overdetermined model can account for any given set of data
by tweaking the parameters. The trick is, once calculated, do those parameters
then predict as yet unmeasured data, WITHOUT CHANGING the parameters?
("Predict" means "within an reasonable/acceptable confidence interval
when tested with the appropriate statistical methods".)
Why am I throwing this back into "ai"? Because (for me) the true test
of whether "ai" has/will become a "science" is when it's theories/hypotheses
can successfully predict (c.f. above) the behaviour of existing "natural"
intelligences (whatever you mean by that, man/horse/porpoise/ant/...).andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/19/83)
#R:sdcsvax:-8400:uokvax:900007:000:1544 uokvax!andree Dec 16 08:18:00 1983 /***** uokvax:net.ai / eosp1!robison / 4:15 am Dec 13, 1983 */ The definitions of Science that were offered, in defense of "computer Science" being a science, were just irrelevant. A field can lay claim to Science, if it uses the "scientific method" to make advances, that is: Hypotheses are proposed. Hypotheses are tested by objective experiments. The experiments are objectively evaluated to prove or disprove the hypotheses. The experiments are repeatable by other people in other places. - Keremath, care of: Robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1 or: allegra!eosp1 /* ---------- */ I have to disagree. Your definition of `science' excludes at least one thing that almost certainly IS a science: astronomy. The major problem here is that most astronomers (all extra-solar astronomers) just can not do experiments. Which is why the call it `obervational astronomy.' I would guess what is needed is three (at least) flavors of science: 1) experimental sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, psychology. Any field that uses the `scientific method.' 2) observational sciences: astronomy, sociology, etc. Any field that, for some reason or another, must be satisfied with observing phenomena, and cannot perform experiments. 3) ? sciences: mathematics, some cs, probably others. Any field that explores the universe of the possible, as opposed to the universe of the actuall. What should the ? be? I don't know. I would tend to favor `logical,' but something tells me a lot of people will object. <mike
darrelj@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Darrel VanBuer) (12/20/83)
Astronomy certainly IS an experimental science. Admittedly they don't heat up Sirius 500 degrees to see how it behaves, but they do the "equivalent" by searching for another, similar star which is 500 degrees warmer. No harder than drumming up $47,000,000 to build an accellerator in 5 years.
rpw3@fortune.UUCP (12/21/83)
#R:sdcsvax:-8400:fortune:21500003:000:2367
fortune!rpw3 Dec 20 20:15:00 1983
I don't think you can limit the "observational sciences" by saying they
cannot do experiments. What they cannot do is experiments where the
experimentor has a high degree of perceived control over the total
environment of the experiment. (In fact, because of that, sometimes
they can do better work because they are not fooling themselves with
the illusion of a "controlled" experiment.)
The key to an "experiment" is that there is a theory relating a quantity
of previously observed data which PREDICTS that if certain as-yet-unobserved
data were taken, the result would be so-and-so. The experiment consists
of taking such NEW data (not correlated with previous data) and,
by analysis, confirming/rejecting the hypothesis. Notice that nowhere
is there the necessity that the experimentor be in control of any of
the data.
While it is very, very true that it is easier to make advances in a
field of study if the subject permits the experimentor to tightly
control one or more independent/orthogonal(izable) observables
which can be shown to account for the vast majority of the standard
error of the observed data, it is not "necessary" for science.
If one's universe supplies a sufficient diversity of sample populations
(stars, cultures, etc.), good science can be done without experimentor
"control". Conversely, terribly sloppy "science" can be (and has been)
done when the experimentor assumes that he/she knows what the "independent"
variables are and that the experiment "controls" them.
The classic example (which was fortunately rescued by the experimentor's
insistence to the funding organization that more data was needed) is
Elton Mayo's studies of production at the Western Electric plant at
Hawthorne. It's so famous that it's now known as the "Hawthorne effect"
(why not Mayo? who knows?).
Turn the lights UP, production goes up...
Turn the music on, production goes up...
Introduce coffee breaks, production goes up...
then...
Turn the lights DOWN, production goes UP...
Turn the music OFF, production goes UP...
Take away coffee breaks, production goes UP...
Proper experiment design is FAR more critical than picky catagorizations
of what is and is not science.
Rob Warnock
UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD: (415)595-8444
USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphins Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (12/22/83)
I disagree - astronomy IS an experimental science. Even before the age of space rockets, some celebrated astronomical experiments have been performed. In astronomy, as in all sciences, one observes, makes hypotheses, and then tries to verify the hypotheses by observation. In chemistry and physics, a lot of attention is paid to setting up an experiment, as well as observing the experiment; in astronomy (geologoy as well!), experiments consist mostly of observation, since there is hardly anything that people are capable of setting up. Here are some pertinent examples: (1) An experiment to test a theory about the composition of the sun has been going on for several years. It consists of an attempt to trap neutrinos from the sun in a pool of chlorine underground. The amount of neutrinos detected has been about 1/4 of what was predicted, leading to new suggestions about both the composition of the sun, and (in particle physics) the phyisical properties of neutrinos. (2) An experiment to verify Einstein's theory of relativity, particularly the hypothesis that the presence of large masses curves space (gravitational relativity) -- Measurements of Mercury's apparent position, during an eclipse of the sun, were in error to a degree consistent with Einstein's theory. Obviously, Astronomical experiments will seem to lie half in the realm of physics, since the theories of physics are the tools with which we try to understand the skies. Astromoers and phyisicists, please help me out here; I'm neither. In fact, I don't even believe in neutrinos. - Keremath, care of: Robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1 or: allegra!eosp1