perm filename PAPER.SCI[DIS,DBL] blob
sn#227306 filedate 1976-07-23 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ā VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002 First sketch of a rough outline for a paper entitled
C00006 ENDMK
Cā;
First sketch of a rough outline for a paper entitled
Scientific Discovery by Computer
1. The hypotheses
Choice of domain is very important.
It must be knowledge-rich (vs, e.g., propositional logic),
have a strong theory about it (vs, e.g., most parts of most soft sciences),
be in a state such that the top experts are much better than the average practitioner
(and the experts are willing to talk!)
(or, at least where the task is performed by all but rarely performed well; e.g., math),
It suffices to consider the problem of discovery in science as a form of heuristic search.
Supporting quote from Poincare'
Expertise is demonstrated by doing the right thing at the right time; so heuristics
must exist for guiding the selection of what to consider next, and what to do to it.
The discoveries in a given field often will fall quite naturally into a few syntactic
categories; thus the use of `templates' is sufficiently sophisticated.
(note: this is true at 2 levels for AM: each concept follows a particular
`concept template', and each conjecture must be of one of a very few
formats or `conjec templates'. The latter seems closest to Meta-Dendral)
2. The experiments
Meta-Dendral
What it is (intent, design, representation and control structure)
What it's done (heuristics present; best rules produced, a feelinn for its
behavior both ypically and in extremely good/bad situations.)
How this embodies -- and tests -- the hypotheses of section 1.
The limitations of Meta-Dendral, and how that modifies the hypotheses.
AM
What it is (intent, design, representation and control structure)
What it's done (initial concepts, heuristics; final concepts, conjecs).
How this embodies -- and tests -- the hypotheses of section 1.
The limitations of AM, and how that modifies the hypotheses.
3. Conclusions
Summary of the previous section: a synthesis of how the results bore on the hyps.
A more sophisticated model of scientific theory formation and scientific discovery
by computer (derived directly by `debugging' the initial hypotheses).
Suggestions for future work (on AM, MD, and on new topics) to test these new ideas.