Pat, (01)
As you know, my formal education is in mathematics and my professional
career has been strongly colored by my 30 years working for IBM. But
my interests in AI have led me to read a wide range of material in
various branches of cognitive science. Besides AI, that includes
linguistics, psychology, philosophy, neuroscience, and anthropology.
The following statement could be made about any branch of cog. sci.
(including AI) just by doing a global edit: (02)
PH> Philosophy, as a professional activity, is a rather arcane
> branch of academe which has its own rules and professional standards.
> Its chief concern is the analysis of arguments and counter-arguments,
> often over extremely obscure points of detail which are all but
> incomprehensible to anyone who is not a professional philosopher,
> often indeed a professional in that particular sub-discipline of
> philosophy. (If anyone disagrees, let them read any academic
> philosophy journal, of the kind that citations in them would help
> a tenure case in a department of philosophy.) (03)
I'm happy that you made the following qualification: (04)
PH> In this it is very similar to other highly specialized
> disciplines, of course. (05)
Unfortunately, the academic compartmentalization causes research
and applications that cross academic boundaries to be undervalued
or even dismissed by the tenure and promotion committees. (06)
PH> There is no evidence for, and considerable pragmatic evidence
> against, the thesis that ontology engineering is improved by
> approaching it with the tools of philosophy, and certainly not
> with the methodologies of contemporary professional philosophy. (07)
To a large extent, I would agree with that statement. But there is
a major difference between benefiting from the insights of a field
and adopting their tools. I've learned a lot from various branches
of cognitive science. But I have no desire to use an fMRI scanner
or implant electrodes in a monkey's brain; I don't intend to hire
a horde of students as guinea pigs in psychological experiments;
and I won't do fieldwork on the languages of stone-age tribes. (08)
But I've gained insights from people who did those things, and
I've cited them in books and articles on AI. In the field of
logic, it's nearly impossible to disentangle the work that was
done by professional philosophers from the work by professional
mathematicians. In fact, many academic courses on logic are
jointly sponsored by the math dept. and the philosophy dept.
And I've heard you comment favorably on the influence by some
professional philosophers such as Carnap and Quine on your
work in AI. (09)
Unfortunately, we've also known professional philosophers who
were penalized by their academic departments for doing too much
interdisciplinary work. But that is a disease that is endemic
to academia and is not limited to any particular department.
In fact, that disease is not limited to academia -- it also
affects business, government, and the entertainment industry. (010)
John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (012)
|