cw (06/15/82)
I assume that watmath!pcmcgeer's recent article (watmath.2615) equating social scientists, shrinks (presumably medical people with an interest in mental medicine), journalists, and pinkos (I assume this is the outdated slang for anyone tainted with a liberal ideal) was intended to be satiric. If not, I would prefer not to associated in a community that so blithely denigrates others. Charles Wetherell Bell Labs, Murray Hill (I am now slightly less proud to call myself a) Computer Scientist
doug (06/15/82)
I didn't read the (satirical?) article Mr. Wetherell was talking about, however your signature prompts me to throw this question out to the gang: Are computer scientists scientists? It seems like almost any field of study which ends in the word "science" isn't, i.e. political science, social science, consumer science, computer science, etc. Isn't there a difference between what people in a science do and what people who are in comp "sci" do? Aren't the methadologies different? Aren't the standards different? What do you all think? doug@uwisc
trb (06/15/82)
The old saw that goes "any science with the word science in its name isn't a science" is narrowminded horseshit (to use a favorite description). Such a statement is similar in scope to "any science with an even number of characters in its name isn't a science." I know that I would be embarrassed to share such an observation with my peers. What good is it to post such inflammatory drivel to a wide access network? Are you just trying to annoy people? Whether or not the statement is true, no benefit will come from having made it, you'll just get at least one (possibly two or more) groups of people slinging mud at each other until blue (brown?) in the face. What a waste of time. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
doug (06/15/82)
BOY! There's no need to get insulting and upset! I just wanted to
start a conversation! Some people obviously are *very* touchy!
Doug Lerner Comp Sci Dept UW, Madison WI (608) 263-2639pcmcgeer (06/15/82)
a) Of course it was intended as satire; b) As this artice noted, it wasn't a very good attempt and was therefore cancelled by me not fifteen minutes after original submission. I guess decvax must have polled us in the meantime. In any case, I apologize to anyone who read the piece and was offended - my sober second thought, to borrow a phrase from Canadian constitutional history, was just a bit slow.
smb (06/16/82)
Fred Brooks has made a useful distinction between 'science' and 'engineering': A scientist builds in order to study; an engineer studies in order to build. What is the ultimate goal of what we do? Eventually -- and it may be several layers removed -- the aim of computer science is to aid someone in producing answers to some problem outside the field. Whether we do that by writing better editors, or by designing more efficient sorting algorithms, or by devising programming languages that make it easier to write correct programs isn't important; what is important is that the goal *of the field* is not knowledge itself, but to produce tools useful for others. (Please note that I'm not saying that the results of "science" can't or shouldn't be used to build better mousetraps; obviously, that's nonsense. Nor am I saying anything about the motivations of any individual researchers; just as there are applied physicists, there are theoreticians in computer science. I'm speaking of the intent of the field as a whole.) --Steve Bellovin
laura (06/16/82)
There is this strange phenonemon in society today -- the revered position of the doctor and the *psychiatrist* in particular. Quite a large proportion of my friends and aquaintances have 'shrinks' and when I mention that I dont believe in them I get looks and stares. One would think that I had the plague! I can just hear them muttering 'you mean she wants to be maladapted to society?' and other (for them) nasty things. I find that I have a fundamental dislike of letting other people do my thinking for me -- and anyone who claims that today's 'shrinks' arent as guilty as proponents of DIANETICS or THE UNIFICATION CHURCH of chanelling one,'s thinking either have not been to one or are incredibly unaware of their own suggestibility. Somewhere we have become convinced that doctors are all-wise like Marcus Welby, and that psychology is becoming a science, instead of the horrible mix of fact, theory, and old-wives tales which is the actual case. This is very strange, given that we are quick to criticize our fellow computer scientists on all sorts of things (self-documenting code, whether one is a hacker) but seem to place so much faith in psychiatry which is less worthy of the title 'science' than computer science. (And we werent all able to agree on that one, either). There are no Hari Sheldons (sp?) able to map out the future based on current knowledge of pshchology. There is little or no agreement among the social-scientists themselves. There is merely a society which, having done away with the pastor and the rabbi, now considers itself more enlightened when it believes the 'shrink' and the social worker. The same criticisms which can be made of religions can be made of modern psychiatry, all in all, with a few exceptions, it boils down to a matter of faith. Until psychology becomes a true science (and I doubt that this will ever occur) then psychologists merely have an educated opinion based on their experience ... same as I do .... not the gospel word of the new god of technology, to be believed and honored, because it is the truth. cheerfully maladaptedly yours, laura creighton decvax!utzoo!laura
wagner (06/16/82)
As usual, Andy, you missed the point. Any science with the word science in its name is still out trying to prove itself to the world, and hasnt been accepted by the general public as a science. Whether we are scientific or not isnt the issue. We stopped calling Physics "the physical sciences" when enough of the world knew what we were talking about that we could stop with the long form. Ask your self this...if we started calling it Computing rather than Computer Science, would the general public be able to categorize it as a science? Michael Wagner, UofToronto Computing Services
henry (06/17/82)
I think the whole issue of whether "science" appears in the name is a red herring, a matter of arbitrary nomenclature rather than deep meaning. (Although I still get a giggle out of the application to the various social "sciences", most of which are not true sciences although some are making progress towards that status.) We name it "<X> science" basically if we can't think of a better word for it. Not that I think Computer Science is a real science, mind you; I hold to the "engineering" theory myself. It is misleading to cite things like automata theory as counterexamples, because these are really branches of mathematics, having little or nothing to do with real computers. Sure, their abstractions sometimes resemble real computers, and their results are sometimes useful when dealing with real computers, but the same can be said about relationships between any number of subfields of mathematics and science/engineering. (Proof: both automata theory and complexity theory got started long before real computers, and the arrival of real computers had little effect on their mainstreams.)