COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	First let me mention the inherent interest of getting a handle on scientific
C00005 00003	. SSSEC(Motivation)
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;
First let me mention the inherent interest of getting a handle on scientific
creativity. How marvelous it would be if we scientists could rely on
automated assistants to carry out the "hack" phases of research, the tiresome
legwork necessary for "secondary" creativity.
AM was attempted to test my personal belief (at the time not strong enough to
be called a hypothesis) that creative discovery in science is largely rule-governed.
For pragmatic and aesthetic reasons, then,
scientific discovery can be -- and ought to
be -- demystified. 


		Personal belief that discovery can be (ought to be) demystified
		Potential for learning, from the system, more about the process 
			of sci. concept formation, thy. formation, chance discovery
			(do experiments on the implementations: eg, vary AM's heurs)
	Potential usefulness of the implementations themselves (including AM)
		Aids to research; i.e., ultimately: new discoveries.
		Potential to education: like Mycin, extract heurs. and teach them
	All the usual bad reasons:
		"Look ma, no hands" + maternal drives + ego + thesis drives +... 
	Historical: 
		Need task with no specific goal, to test BEINGs ideas.
		Disenchantment with theorem-provers that plod along, in contrast
			to the processes which my model of math demands: intu, need,
	                aesth., multiple reprs, proposing vs proving, fixed task.
	
.E

. SSSEC(Motivation)

.QQ

We need a super-mathematics in which the operations are as unknown as
the quantities  they operate on, and  a super-mathematician, who does
not know what he is doing when he performs these operations.

-- Eddington

.ESS


Although the  motivation for  carrying out  this  research of  course
preceded the effort,  I have delayed until this  section a discussion
of why this is worthwhile, why it was attempted.

First  let me mention  the inherent  interest of getting  a handle on
scientific creativity.  How marvelous  it would be  if we  scientists
could rely on automated assistants  to carry out the "hack" phases of
research, the tiresome legwork necessary for "secondary"  creativity.
AM was partly  a demonstration that  some aspects of  creative theory
formation   could  be  demystified,  could   be  modelled  as  simple
rule-governed behavior.

Second, AM itself may grow into something of pragmatic value. Perhaps
it will become a useful tool for mathematicians, for educators, or as
a model for systems in more "practical" fields.

Third,  I must stress the  potential for learning  from AM more about
the processes of concept  formation. This was touched  on previously,
and  several experiments  already performed  on AM  will  be detailed
later.

It would be  unfair not  to mention the  usual bad  reasons for  this
research:  the "Look  ma,  no hands"  syndrome,  the AI  researcher's
classic maternal urges, ego, the usual thesis drives, etc.

Historically,  the domain of AM  came from a search  for a scientific
field whose activities had no specific goal; this was to test out the
BEINGs ideas for a modular representation of knowledge.