maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) (04/30/88)
Summary: Here we have a prime specimen of the species Expires: References: <8803270154.AA08607@bu-cs.bu.edu> <962@daisy.UUCP> <5789@swan.ulowell.edu> <978@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <445@novavax.UUCP> <502@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk> Sender: Reply-To: maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida Keywords: AI, Sociology, manners. In article <502@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk> simon@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Simon Brooke) writes: >In article <445@novavax.UUCP> maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes: > >> "Rigorous sociology/contemporary anthropology"? Ha ha ha ha >>ha ha ha ha, &c. > >What do the third and subsequent iterations of the symbol 'ha' add to the >meaning of this statement? Are we to assume the author doubts the rigour >of Sociology, or the contemporary nature of anthropology? Yeah, I think you could assume both, pal. Repeated "ha"s added for emphasis, in case some lamebrain (sociologist? if the shoe fits . . . ) wandered through and needed help. >>And some of the most interesting investigations of topics once dominated >>by the humanities, such as theory of mind, are taking place in AI labs. > >This is, of course, true - some of it is. Just as some of the most >interesting advances in Artificial Intelligence take place in Philosophy >and Linguistics departments. This is what one would expect, after all; for >what is AI but an experimental branch of Philosophy? "AI but an experimental branch of Philosophy," eh? Let's see, now: according to that view, I believe *every* branch of what we usually call science could be construed in this way . . . or not. In short, the statement is almost perfectly empty. Or maybe the secret is in the use of the word "Philosophy." That must be a special variant of common or run-of-the-mill "philosophy," capitalized for occult reasons known only to its initiates. Also, I have no quarrel with these "most interesting advances" that are coming out of philosophy and linguistic departments. Philosophy and linguistics, you might notice, *not* sociology. Let's read on. He's quoting me now: >>sociologists produce a great deal of nonsense, and indeed the social >>"sciences" in toto are afflicted by conceptual confusion at every >>level. Ideologues, special interest groups, purveyors of outworn >>dogma (Marxists, Freudians, et alia) continue to plague the social >>sciences in a way that would be almost unimaginable in the sciences, Then he returns to his own lovely prose: >Gosh! Isn't it nice, now and again, to read the words of someone whose >knowledge of a field is so deep and thorough that they can some it up in >one short paragraph! "Some it up in one short paragraph"? No, really, I can't "some" it up; don't even know what doing so means. However, if you are trying in your inept fashion to say, "sum it up," thanks. I thought it was a pretty good paragraph myself. >It is, of course, true that some embarassingly poor work is published in >Sociology, just as in any other discipline; perhaps indeed there is more >poor sociology, simply because sociology is more difficult to do well than >any other type of study - most of the phenomena of sociology occurs in the >interaction between individuals, and this interaction cannot readily be >accessed by an observer who is not party to the interaction. Yet if you >are part of the interaction, it will not proceed as it would with someone >else... We're told "most of the phenomena . . . occurs" [subject-verb agreement], further that "this interaction cannot readily be accessed by an observer" [unnecessary jargon borrowed from another field and used for the appearance of scientific rigor]. I guarantee it, this guy *must* be a social scientist, sociologist or not. >Again, sociological investigation, because it looks at us in a >rigorous way which we are not used to, often leads to conclusions which >seem counter-intuitive - they cut through our self-deceits and hypocrisies. >So we prefer to abuse the messenger rather than listen to the message. "Sociological investigation . . . looks at us in a rigorous way which we are not used to," the man says. On his evidence, it's through a glass darkly, which, alas, we are all quite used to. The notion of sociology as a bringer of ugly truths is particularly amusing, though, and I thank him for it. I should add that I felt some remorse for my slap at sociology, because the essential plight of the social sciences is quite desperate. However, when I read the message quoted above, my remorse evaporated. I would simply add that many sociologists, whatever the ultimate value of their work, *can* read, write, and think. Also, present polemics aside, my original diatribe came as a response to a particularly self-satisfied posting from (apparently) a sociologist attacking AI research as uninformed, puerile, &c. It seemed (and seems) to me that anyone in such an inherently weak field should be rather careful in his criticism: he's in the position of a man throwing bricks at passers-by through his own front window. So let me reiterate: AI research produces valuable and interesting work; sociology produces much, much less.
simon@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Simon Brooke) (05/04/88)
People, this is not a polite message; if polemic offends you, hit <n> now.
It is, however, a serious message, which reflects on attitudes which have
become rather too common on this mailing list. Some time ago, Thomas
Maddox, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida responded to a mailing by Gilbert
Cockton (Scottish HCI Centre, Glasgow), in a way which showed he was both
ignorant and contemptuous of Sociology. Now it isn't a crime to be
ignorant, or contemptuous - I am frequently both, about Unix for example.
But when I am, I'm not surprised to be corrected.
In any case, Tom's posting annoyed me, and I replied sharply. And he, in
turn, has replied to me. Whilst obviously there's no point in spinning
this out ad infinitum, there are a few points to be responded to. In his
first message, Tom wrote:
"Rigorous sociology/contemporary anthropology"? Ha ha....
I responded:
Are we to assume that the author doubts the rigour of Sociology,
or the contemporary nature of anthropology?
and Tom has clarified:
Yes, I think you could assume both, pal.
That anthropology is contemporary is a matter of fact, not debate.
Anthropologists are contemporarily studying contemporary cultures. If you
doubt that, you obviously are not reading any contemporary anthropology.
Tom's claim that he doubts the rigour of sociology, whilst more believable,
displays equal lack of knowledge of the field. What is more disturbing is
his apparent view that 'dogma' which 'plagues the social sciences', is
less prevalent in the sciences. Has he read Thomas Kuhn's work on
scientific revolutions?
Tom also takes issue with my assertion that:
AI (is) an experimental branch of Philosophy
AI has two major concerns: the nature of knowledge, and the nature of
mind. These have been the central subject matter of philosophy since
Aristotle, at any rate. The methods used by AI workers to address these
problems include logic - again drawn from Philosophy. So to summarise:
AI addresses philosophical problems using (among other things)
philosophers tools. Or to put it differently, Philosophy plus hardware -
plus a little computer science - equals what we now know as AI. The fact
that some workers in the field don't know this is a shameful idictment on
the standards of teaching in AI departments.
Too many AI workers - or, to be more accurate, too many of those now
posting to this newsgroup - think they can get away with arrogant
ignorance of the work on which their field depends.
Finally, with regard to manners, Tom writes:
My original diatribe came as a response to a particularly
self-satisfied posting by (apparently) a sociologist attacking
AI research as uninformed, peurile, &c.
If Tom doesn't know who Gilbert Cockton is, then perhaps he'd better not
waste time reading up sociology, anthropology, and so on. He's got enough
to do keeping up with the computing journals.
** Simon Brooke *********************************************************
* e-mail : simon@uk.ac.lancs.comp *
* surface: Dept of Computing, University of Lancaster, LA 1 4 YW, UK. *
************************************************************************* cbs@geacrd.UUCP (Chris Syed) (05/09/88)
This is a comment upon parts of two recent submissions, one by Simon Brooke and another from Jeff Dalton. Brooke writes: > AI has two major concerns: the nature of knowledge, and the nature of > mind. These have been the central subject matter of philosophy since > Aristotle, at any rate. The methods used by AI workers to address these > problems include logic - again drawn from Philosophy. So to summarise: > AI addresses philosophical problems using (among other things) > philosophers tools. Or to put it differently, Philosophy plus hardware - > plus a little computer science - equals what we now know as AI. The fact > that some workers in the field don't know this is a shameful idictment on > the standards of teaching in AI departments. If anyone doubts these claims, s/he might try reading something on Horne clause logic. {I know, Horne probably dosen't have an 'e' on it}. And, as Brooke says, a dose of Thomas Kuhn seems called for. It is no accident that languages such as Prolog seem to appeal to philosophers. In fact, poking one's head into a Phil common room these days is much like trotting down to the Comp Sci dept. All them philosophers is talking like programmers these days. And no wonder - at last they can simulate minds. Meanwhile, try Minsky's _Community of Mind_ for a peek at the crossover from the other direction. By the by, it's relatively hard to find a Phil student, even at the graduate level, who can claim much knowledge of Aristotle these days (quod absit)! Nevertheless, dosen't some AI research have more mundane concerns than the study of mind? Like how do we zap all those incoming warheads whilst avoiding wasting time on the drones? Jeff Dalton writes: > Speaking of outworn dogmas, AI seems to be plagued by behaviorists, > or at least people who seem to think that having the right behavior > is all that is of interest: hence the popularity of the Turing Test. I'm not sure that the Turing Test is quite in fashion these days, though there is notion of a 'Total Turing Test' (Daniel C. Dennet, I think?). Behaviourism, I must admit, gives me a itch (positively reinforcing, I'm sure). But I wonder just what 'the right behaviour' _is_, anyway? It seems to me that children (from a Lockean 'tabula rasa' point of view), learn & react differently from adults (with all that emotional baggage they carry around). One aspect of _adult_ behaviour I'm not sure AI should try to mimic is our nasty propensity to fear admitting one's wrong. AI research offers Philosophy a way to strip out all the social and cultural surrounds and explore reasoning in a vaccuum... to experiment upon artificial children. But adult humans cannot observe, judge, nor act without all that claptrap. As an Irishman from MIT once observed, "a unique excellence is always a tragic flaw". Maybe it depends on what you're after? {uunet!mnetor,yunexus,utgpu} o ~ !geac!geacrd!cbs (Chris Syed) ~ \-----\---/ GEM: CHRIS:66 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "There can be no virtue in obeying the law of gravity." - J.E.McTaggart.