wcn@cs.brown.edu (Wen-Chun Ni) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May14.190239.1330@cs.yale.edu> horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes: * In article <1991May12.224331.20754@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>, wangh@beasley.CS.ORST.EDU (Haiyan Wang) writes: * <In article <TSAO.91May12145829@bacchus.tcad.ee.ufl.edu> tsao@tcad.ee.ufl.edu ( Tsao) writes: * <> * <>Interesting, would you tell me what is "Computer Science" ? * < * <I think there are plenty Computer Science major netter out there to answer * <this question. * * Well, I'm a computer-"science" major (with a second major in Chinese language * and literature), and I'm the one who originally raised this question on SCC. * (Follow-ups to `comp.edu', please.) * * >They should be able to state the difference between computer * <science and computer engineering than I do as I am majoring in physics. * * Fine. There's a difference between computer engineering and what is called * computer science, but that doesn't mean that the term `computer science' * is an accurate description of the field. * * You keep avoiding the question. Please tell us: What is scientific about * computer "science"? * Please pre-define "what is science" and there would be someone capable of answering your question, because we might have different opinions about the term "science." I myself incline to the interpretation of Whitehead in his book "Science and the Modern World." What do your think? There might be some very profound areas in Computer Science which are untouched by an undergrade, but this doesn't mean an undergrade has less understanding in computer science if summing up. Unix doesn't represent the computer society. In the same way, term-rewriting techniques doesn't either. Many people denied the significance of Computer Science based on the observation that mathematicians had invented algorithms long before they discovered abstract algebra. This cannot be a conclusive argument because the basic spirits are quite different in these two subjects. On the other hand, we too cannot capture the spirit from Electrical Engineering's basic approaches in building computers. Try to look at IEEE Tran. on Computers and those ACM-based journals, you will find the fundamental differences in objectives and arguments. Several fields of mathematics border theoretical computer science, e.g. logic and combinatorics. But they are by no means the same in goals. As a student in theoretical computer science, I don't feel that the difference is subtle. If, according to some mathmaticians like Kline, the basic approaches of scientific studies include observations annd logical reasoning, then I can't see why 'Computer Science' isn't accurate to describe the studies so many people are conducting. In physics, there have been fundamental differences in theory and experiments. But I never heard of any kind of terms like 'physics engineering,' even though Electrical Engineering can be considered to be some kind of applications to Physics. The above arguments still depends on the basic question: What is science? And we earnestly hope Scott will give us his definitions. Wen-Chun Ni: Department of Computer Science Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 ________________________________________________________________ * * * I'm quite sure if God were asked * * * to draw up a programme of the world ** *** *** he had created, he could never do it. * * * * * * ******** -- Mahler to Alma, 15th Dec 1901 * * * * * * in description of 2nd Symphony * * * * "Resurrection." * * **** ________________________________________________________________
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (05/19/91)
This is probably foolish, but I'll take a crack at it...
A scientist is primarily concerned with taxonomies (classification)
and discovering the unknown of phenomena, that is, new data to
taxonomize. Thus, an experimental physicist might work on finding a
new phenomena that is only suspected (perhaps by the theory.) Once
found, another might taxonomize it (show it fits some equation or
model.) Theoretical mathematics is largely the same, finding something
unusual, convincing oneself it's really there, then trying to puzzle
it into the bigger picture of what's already known (if it really won't
fit it's called "a major discovery".)
An engineer is primarily concerned with finding ways to apply that
which is known, usually trying to find some optimal fit of theory to
practice. The methodology for doing this can certainly be a science,
but that's a meta-issue (I can make a science out of discovering
engineering methods.)
Put another way, the scientist accepts the unknown as a challenge, and
the engineer accepts the unknown as a limitation to work within.
Consider matrix inversion, which is pretty much an O(N3) problem. A
computer scientist might be interested in some way to reduce the
computational complexity by discovering new algorithms. The engineer
would be more interested in the fastest way to apply hardware to this
problem.
That the word "computer" comes up defines a boundary of interest.
There are always overlaps between mathematicians and scientists, since
scientists use math. But by constraining oneself to the physical
system (eg. limiting investigation to discrete solutions) the
distinction is clear.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD