Spencer.Star@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU.UUCP (08/24/87)
In V5 #201 Andrew Jenning suggests that AI is empirical research when a programmer writes a program because we have some definite criteria: either the program works or it does not. Unfortunately, this view is rather widespread. Also, it is wrong. Empirical research seeks to make general statements of a quantitative nature. For example, the measurement of the speed of light gives us a value that is applicable in general, not just Tues July 15th in Joe's lab. A psychologist who measures the reaction time of a person before and after drinking alcohol is making an empirical statement that should hold in other labs under other similar experimental conditions. The central ideas of empirical research is that results be publically repeatably, and lead to some generalizations. If it happens that the results confirm or disconfirm some theoretical predictions, so much the better. A programmer who gets a program to work says nothing more scientific than a plumber who has cleared a drain or a dentist who has filled a tooth. In most cases there was no theory being tested, there is no generalization that can be made, the work is handcrafted and cannot be repeated in another lab based on the public description of what was done, and we cannot even be sure that the program works on anything more than the specific examples used in the demonstration. At best such a program is an example of craftsmanship and programming skills. It has nothing to do with scientific research. Spencer Star (star@h.cs.cmu.edu)
eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa.UUCP (08/28/87)
In article <556829438.star@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu> Spencer Star wrote: >In V5 #201 Andrew Jenning suggests that AI is empirical research when a >programmer writes a program because we have some definite criteria: >either the program works or it does not. Unfortunately, this view is >rather widespread. Also, it is wrong. It fact, it was a rather well known AI researcher who reinforced this view. I liked Stan Steb's posting just before this one which took a more forward looking view [I had minor disagreements, but who cares]. What AI SHOULD be: more concern with the empirical, more experimental in the traditional sense of the word, let's at least give these reviewers and Don Norman a positive nod, and try to improve the WAY we do our work, as well as try to improve our work. --eugene