TLW.MDC@OFFICE-1.ARPA.UUCP (07/10/87)
I'm inclined to belive that Don Norman is right, and that AI is not a science;
which is okay, there being a number of perfectly good, self-respecting fields
of study out there that are not sciences.
Still, its likely that there have been sensitivities offended and a defense is
to be anticipated. In lieu of a more respectable and formal argument in defense
of AI being a science, I am prepared to steal from William James and proffer a
pragmatic test. The rationale is as follows:
1. Grant moneys are issued by various public and private agencies for the
support of research in both sciences and non-sciences
2. Issuing agencies are generally authorized to finance projects falling
within their scope of study only.
3. These agencies have some criteria for determining what appropriate
projects are.
THEREFORE:
4. Any projects funded by an agency as a science (e.g. NSF) are science
projects reflecting scientific work (except for method or instrumentation
projects).
The challenge, then, is to find any researcher working on an AI project funded
by a science-supportive agency.
If only it were all this easy...
Tony Wilkie <TLW.MDC@Office-1.ARPA>