However, `science', especially natural science, which was minimized(?) in 19th.
century, requires `to be universal', `to be objective', and `to be reproductive';
at least, we were taught at school that these three norms are essential in
though Feyerabend said "Anything goes".
Paul K. Feyerabend: Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge, 3rd ed., Verso, 1993.
Studies on artificial intelligence have tendency to
be ruled by these three norms.
Referees often ask us `Is your study universal?', `Is your study objective?', and
`Is your study reproductive?'.
Is this appropriate for the studies on AI?
AI studies are not just part of natural science but are closely related to
Philosopher Yoichiro Murakami says `Culture involves dynamic and fluctuating equilibrium. Civilization cannot accept to involve this dynamic and fluctuating equilibrium.' (English translation by Hori.)
Yoichiro Murakami: Death of Civilization / Rebirth of Culture, Iwanami publishing, 2006.(in Japanese)
Following this Murakami's claim, it is natural to think `natural science'
and `culture' are incompatible.
objective vs. subjective
universal vs. local
reproductive vs. unique opportunity
How about the relation between `technology' and 'culture'?
Technology has longer history than natural science, and it has had close
relations with cultures.
It is obvious when we think of architecture, gardening, craft work, pottery, and so on.
I am interested in the relations among AI technologies and cultures.
Moreover, I want to build systems to support and enhance the cultures.
Creativity support systems I have built are parts of them.
Linda Candy and Koichi Hori:
The Digital Muse: HCI in Support for Creativity: Creativity and Cognition Comes of Age: Towards a New Discipline,
ACM Interactions, X.4, pp.44--54, 2003.