I just read Kuhn's *Structure of Scientific Revolutions*. It could have been written as an explanation of why the field of AGI is as it is today: There is not yet a tight-knit scientific community for AGI, driven by a shared new "paradigm."
Practical conclusions: 1. When people ask why AGI is not getting academic attention, refer them to (popularizations and summaries) of Kuhn. It is strange that this is not done more often. (Thanks, Richard.) Part of the problem is that the phrase "paradigm shift" has been flogged to meaninglessness, but that does not change the essence of the argument. 2. Take guidance from Kuhn and related researchers on how to launch a paradigm shift. (Kuhn himself states that his ideas are prescriptive as well as descriptive.) This would involve, most importantly, shared "paradigms." These are specific examples that encapsulate laws, which give a fundamentally different world-view, not just improving on the older approach, but understanding the world in a fundamentally different way. Also, this would involve creating a close-knit community through conferences, journals, common terminologies/ontologies, email lists, articles, books, fellowships, collaborations, correspondence, research institutes, doctoral programs, and other such devices. (Popularization is not on the list of community-builders, although it may have its own value.) Ben has been involved in many efforts in these directions -- I wonder if he was thinking of Kuhn. Joshua On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 Joshua Fox wrote: > Richard, thanks for the reference to Kuhn. I was aware of his "paradigm shift" > concepts, although I have not yet read his writings. > > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 Richard Loosemore wrote: > > It sounds like you might be asking about paradigm shifts in the technical sense of > > that term. Have you read Kuhn and Lakatos? ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=85562421-b91ef0
