It maybe helpful to use some of Kuhn¹s ideas, but bear in mind that he did not subcribe to a unified theory of science (which we, I believe, do need); did not want to connect the political with science (which we, I believe, do have to do) and lastly did not want to see scientists be responsible for there exploits, at least on an intellectual level (which we, I believe, have to consider). If you have the time to read Structure perhaps one can read The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Popper.
My two cents, Peter Op [DATUM], [NAAM] <[ADRES]> schreef: > 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/?_secret=85562723-c060f8 > <http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;> ----- 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=85977152-e4cdaf
