billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (09/11/89)
From article <6103@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, by ram@wb1.cs.cmu.edu (Rob MacLachlan): >> There is a general progression which all fields go through: >> >> Art form => Engineering discipline => Hard Science >> >> The progress along this route is proportional to what is known >> about the field. > > This is a ridiculously sweeping generalization, and also one pretty > discredited in philosophy-of-science circles. This "physics envy" > has been a justification for much bad science (e.g. behaviorism.) This is not "physics envy", just an empirical description. To show this, let's consider one of the "hardest" cases: the painting, sculpture, etc. which collectively is referred to as Art. One might think that there is no prospect for the evolution of these areas into engineering discipline, or even into hard science. After all, we're no closer to defining Art than we are to eradicating the cockroach... but the two problems are actually "hard" for much the same reason. The cockroach eradication problem is hard because we have not yet been able to precisely define the cockroach system. Although much is known (just as much is known about humans), we still do not know the detailed operations of every organ. In particular, we do not completely understand the operations of a cockroach's brain, much less a human brain. If we were able to precisely define a cockroach, at the molecular level, it would then be a matter of designing special viruses which were programmed to seek out and destroy anything having a specific genetic sequence which uniquely identifies the targeted type of insect. In this way, the problem of cockroach eradication would move from the present state (between art form and engineering discipline) to almost a science. If the viruses could be programmed such that it was provably impossible to elude the virus (through genetic mutations) due to the high degree of genetic coverage the virus possessed, and such that they would recursively chase down every cockroach in the universe under consideration (essentially driving the insect into extinction), then we would have the problem down to a science. Now why is it that we have trouble defining Art? It is precisely because we do not have a precise definition for the term "human". Given such a definition, the Art problem could conceivably be expressed in terms of the production of specific neurochemicals in the user's brain, or the formation of specific ideas (whatever the representation of an idea is...), or the formation of specific memories. Having done this, Art becomes an engineering discipline. As more is known about how to satisfy the desired constraints upon the user's brain, Art continues to move into the realm of science. Like the cockroach eradication problem, the progress in this field has been blocked for a very long time because it depends upon progress in some very hard underlying problems which have taken a very long time to solve. (I have directed followups to sci.philosophy.tech, since this is getting pretty distant from comp.sw.components...) Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (09/14/89)
In article <6433@hubcap.clemson.edu> Bill Wolfe writes: >From article <6103@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, by ram@wb1.cs.cmu.edu (Rob MacLachlan): >There is a general progression which all fields go through: >Art form => Engineering discipline => Hard Science >The progress along this route is proportional to what is known >about the field. It seems to me, rather, that the three disciplines can better be distinguished by their purposes. Art is (I believe) principally concerned with the production and communication of subjective experience (feelings, thoughts, sensations, intimations, and the like). Engineering is primarily concerned with control over the physical universe. Science is concerned with discovery of the laws of nature. Any of these disciplines can be done with a greater or lesser amount of knowledge. Various forms of crafts (such as those we learned in Boy Scout camp) are primitive forms of engineering that require considerably less knowledge than designing a spacecraft. The fingerpainting we did in school is considerably less knowledgeable than the work of Rembrandt. A baby's attempt to find out about physical reality by alternately tasting, feeling, smelling, and seeing an object is a primitive form of science -- he too, is concerned with discovering the regularities in his environment. I don't think an expert in art is any less knowledgeable than his counterpart in engineering, or that an expert engineer is more ignorant than a top-level scientist. It is just that the subject matter is different and the purpose is different. Is one form of knowledge more "proper" than another? I don't see how one could say that. -- Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (09/15/89)
"Is one form of knowledge more 'proper' than another? I don't
see how one could say that."
Sarge Gerbode
"...the proper study of man is man."
Alexander Pope (?)bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (09/15/89)
In article <6894@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: > "Is one form of knowledge more 'proper' than another? I don't > see how one could say that." > Sarge Gerbode I don't know about "proper", but some forms are more useful. When a jigsaw puzzle is assembled so as to reveal the big picture, the information is more usable than when the pieices lay jumbled up in the box. Facts which are sorted and organized are more useful than a collection of unorganized data. We structure and organize information by putting it into outline form, corresponding to a heirarchical or "tree" topology. Complex systems of information are compiled into "semantic networks" which have richer topology than simple trees. Hypercard is a good example of a tool for organizing information into a semantic network, where you can easily navigate through the knowledge base. Modern computer-based thesauri are another example of a nicely structure semantic network. So I feel it is useful (maybe even proper) to knit pieces of information into a fabric of knowledge. --Barry Kort