IET/RTS joint public lecture on 11th May 2016

The IET/RTS  lecture last year given by Dennis Hassabis on Artificial Intelligence at the British Museum last year at the British Museum cost £10. It was a great event in a fantastic setting. Dennis Hassibis is a genuinely talented and clever engineer and thinker, making genuine progress in a difficult and complex field.


A lot of older scientists attempt to become philosophy majors at the end of their careers, when they have nothing else new left to say. There is a small chance he might pull it off, but I wouldn't personally be willing to risk £10 on this actually happening given the lecture sales blurb...

" “Science as Revolution” - Science has brought about revolutionary changes in our understanding of ourselves and the natural world, which have acted as major drivers of our culture and civilization. This scientific knowledge has in turn brought about revolutions in the ways that we live and in the technologies that support society. A case can be made that science is the most revolutionary activity of human-kind."


The trouble is revolution in science is complex and mostly takes at least three generations (>60 years) to pull off, even in the modern era - continental drift to plate tectonics for example, with many many influences and enablers coming from outside of what is normally defined as "science" and scientific knowledge.  When I briefly studied history and philosophy of science the prevailing view was that the prevailing norms of society and its culture was a huge influence on how science and engineering progressed. But at the same time you can also make the very strong case that the reverse is continually happening as well, especially in the modern era.


The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that the longstanding and arbitrary distinction between humanities and science (STEM) that is currently deeply embedded in our teaching institutions and subject classifications, is not in practice a good way to organise knowledge to describe the workings of the real world (as we have historical evidence for), and on this basis may not be the best foundation for educating future generations.


James

The IET/RTS  lecture last year given by Dennis Hassabis on Artificial Intelligence at the British Museum last year at the British Museum cost £10. It was a great event in a fantastic setting. Dennis Hassibis is a genuinely talented and clever engineer and thinker, making genuine progress in a difficult and complex field.


A lot of older scientists attempt to become philosophy majors at the end of their careers, when they have nothing else new left to say. There is a small chance he might pull it off, but I wouldn't personally be willing to risk £10 on this actually happening given the lecture sales blurb...

" “Science as Revolution” - Science has brought about revolutionary changes in our understanding of ourselves and the natural world, which have acted as major drivers of our culture and civilization. This scientific knowledge has in turn brought about revolutions in the ways that we live and in the technologies that support society. A case can be made that science is the most revolutionary activity of human-kind."


The trouble is revolution in science is complex and mostly takes at least three generations (>60 years) to pull off, even in the modern era - continental drift to plate tectonics for example, with many many influences and enablers coming from outside of what is normally defined as "science" and scientific knowledge.  When I briefly studied history and philosophy of science the prevailing view was that the prevailing norms of society and its culture was a huge influence on how science and engineering progressed. But at the same time you can also make the very strong case that the reverse is continually happening as well, especially in the modern era.


The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that the longstanding and arbitrary distinction between humanities and science (STEM) that is currently deeply embedded in our teaching institutions and subject classifications, is not in practice a good way to organise knowledge to describe the workings of the real world (as we have historical evidence for), and on this basis may not be the best foundation for educating future generations.


James