3 ms·

I think it's pretty cool that they constrained the robots to using human phonemes, because the investigators can actually listen and observe while the robots ar

by dkarl 15y ago

I think it's pretty cool that they constrained the robots to using human phonemes, because the investigators can actually listen and observe while the robots are talking. It might be more scientifically rigorous to prevent that kind of informal observation when testing a hypothesis, but they might learn something this way that will generate new ideas and new hypotheses to test.

scott_s 15y ago
This kind of research is more exploratory engineering than it is science. As someone who does this sort of thing [1], we don't really have a hypothesis and are looking for data to support that hypothesis. We have an idea - "Hey! I think we can get this cool thing to work!" - and then we grind away at implementing it until what we have is cool enough to show off. This is fundamentally different than pure science because we're not actually testing a hypothesis or a theory. (If you're thinking "What about the hypothesis, it's possible to do X?" well, that's a pretty weak hypothesis.) Yeah, we have experiments, but those are used to show that technique X is better than technique Y when using metric Z. We're not improving our fundamental understanding of how how the universe works, we're improving our ability to build things - either by demonstrating a new technique to achieve an old thing, or by demonstrating that an entirely new thing is possible. [1] Not robots or machine learning, but computer science research in general. I do high performance computing and systems research.
- GrooveStomp 15y ago
  You know, before reading your post I never even questioned that I had a strongly scientific leaning in my mentality. Now I realize I'm much more of an exploratory engineer than a scientist. Actually, now that I think about it, haven't there been a great number of scientific discoveries that were, according to your distinction, actually exploratory engineering? I would think that following all the side-effects and byproducts of rigorous scientific study would qualify as exploratory engineering, wouldn't they? Anyway, interesting perspective. Particularly on point, as I just finished reading Cory Doctorow's "Makers".
  - scott_s 15y ago
    I've put a lot of thought into it, since it's what I do. I never felt comfortable calling myself a "scientist" because I was doing more inventing than discovering. I think there are cases where the distinction between the two can be fuzzy, but I think it comes down to have you learned something about the universe and the things in it, or have you learned a better way to build something? Most of the time I've learned a better way to build something. CS theory people can claim more fundamental knowledge, but they fall more in the math camp than science. And make no mistake, I would be flattered to be called a scientist. But I have friends in physics and biochemistry. I know that there is a fundamental difference in our research. However, knowing how to design an experiment that will show what you want to show is required for both science and engineering research.

by dkarl 15y ago

scott_s 15y ago

This kind of research is more exploratory engineering than it is science. As someone who does this sort of thing [1], we don't really have a hypothesis and are looking for data to support that hypothesis. We have an idea - "Hey! I think we can get this cool thing to work!" - and then we grind away at implementing it until what we have is cool enough to show off. This is fundamentally different than pure science because we're not actually testing a hypothesis or a theory. (If you're thinking "What about the hypothesis, it's possible to do X?" well, that's a pretty weak hypothesis.) Yeah, we have experiments, but those are used to show that technique X is better than technique Y when using metric Z. We're not improving our fundamental understanding of how how the universe works, we're improving our ability to build things - either by demonstrating a new technique to achieve an old thing, or by demonstrating that an entirely new thing is possible. [1] Not robots or machine learning, but computer science research in general. I do high performance computing and systems research.

GrooveStomp 15y ago
You know, before reading your post I never even questioned that I had a strongly scientific leaning in my mentality. Now I realize I'm much more of an exploratory engineer than a scientist. Actually, now that I think about it, haven't there been a great number of scientific discoveries that were, according to your distinction, actually exploratory engineering? I would think that following all the side-effects and byproducts of rigorous scientific study would qualify as exploratory engineering, wouldn't they? Anyway, interesting perspective. Particularly on point, as I just finished reading Cory Doctorow's "Makers".
- scott_s 15y ago
  I've put a lot of thought into it, since it's what I do. I never felt comfortable calling myself a "scientist" because I was doing more inventing than discovering. I think there are cases where the distinction between the two can be fuzzy, but I think it comes down to have you learned something about the universe and the things in it, or have you learned a better way to build something? Most of the time I've learned a better way to build something. CS theory people can claim more fundamental knowledge, but they fall more in the math camp than science. And make no mistake, I would be flattered to be called a scientist. But I have friends in physics and biochemistry. I know that there is a fundamental difference in our research. However, knowing how to design an experiment that will show what you want to show is required for both science and engineering research.