otto (06/15/82)
I have often wondered about the "Science" appendage to fields whose names by themselves would not appear to be scientific. Are these new fields in fact sciences? or does the term simply connote a more methodical way of dealing with the topic at hand than would normally be the case? What is a science? I adopt the position that something is a science if it follows the steps outlined by Thomas Kuhn in his *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions*, to wit, that there is an overriding paradigm that those in the field agree defines the legitimate problems and methods of solution of that field. Changes in that paradigm can come about (these are the scientific revolutions mentioned in the title of his work), but at all times outside these moments of revolutionary adjustment there is but *one* paradigm defining the field. Before a field becomes a science it is in what is called its "preparadigm" period, marked by numerous competing attempts to understand the basic phenomena slated for study, with no clear unifying principles tying the whole area together. The period of the Alchemists was just such a time for chemistry. It was not until basic unifying principles were discovered and promulgated by such as Dalton, Lavoisier, etc., that chemistry finally acquired a paradigm and became a science. Based on Kuhn's ideas, I think it clear that the fields of Computer Science and Psychology are neither one sciences: both are in their preparadigm phases. In fact, I would be tempted to say that fields that append "science" to their names, such as Military Science, Peace Science, Computer Science, etc., are actually opting for *preparadigmhood*. They are claiming that, just as happened with the Alchemists, by gaining enough experience in the given field and noting enough events, that at some point *in the future* someone will be able to formulate unifying principles that will give the field its first paradigm and qualify it as a science. Thus, for me, the use of the term "science" in the title of a field of study tells me more about the researchers hopes for its future than about the current state of their knowledge about it. George Otto Bell Labs, Indian Hill ----------------------
steveg (06/16/82)
I'm not sure you could call hardware design a pre-paradigm science. It has become pretty much a normal science, where people who violate the Von-Neuman rules getting badly bruised. Look at the ammount of pain Intel has with the 432, which could conceivably start the next revolution. AI, though, is your classic pre-paradigm science. I can't yet imagine AI holding on to one paradigm for more than 3 years. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that hill-climing, and perceptrons were in vogue (they still are among a lot of the "yet to die off" generation). Have the Kuhnians in the audiance read: "Night Thoughts of a Classical Physicist", I think most would enjoy it. - Steven Gutfreund University of Massachusetts, L.O.A DEC Corporate Research