eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (03/16/86)
Last week I had the pleasure to be invited to a conference which included some of the Big names in computer science. Part of the first day's discussion (up to the last of 3 days) was whether or not computer science really was a science. Since we have been discussing the value of the degree, I thought it might be interesting to discuss what that degree is about. The first speaker (from CMU) asserted that classical retort that any field using "Science" (and "ology" implicitly) in its name probably was not a science. I believe it was Morvin Gentleman from Waterloo who asserted that it was [to use Herbet Simon's term] a science of the artificial and that unlike previous sciences we are setting out to create a new. One faction in the room asserted it was not a science at all, but a form of engineering. Other factions say that all sciences strive to compare to physics [guess this person's profession], an assertion which P. Denning has written (I think in CACM) that should not be compared. Okay, call it an aspiring science. The talk shifted to other purposes of the conference, but the shift refocused during the dinner keynote from (Cornell) asserting that yes it was a science, but a young one (30 years compared to 2,000 for physics). There appear to be several unresolved issues which I think can be described in the round by questions ratehr than attempting to answer the main question and hopefully shed more knowledge than a straight answer. >What distinguishes scientific reasoning from "non-"scientific reasoning? [I assert one thing is experimentation and control, but this is a problem for mathematics and astronomy.] Contrast this to say philosophy (science's favorite whipping boy). >It has been asserted that mathematics is the "Queen of the sciences," what is the king? [An ex-boss, in attendence, asserts it is physics.] >The psychologist, B.F. Skinner, asserts that sciences like physics over turn their ideas of information: we do not really teaching Aristolian physics, but Aristolian ideas about behavior still hold valid (note: he was generalizing). Do computer science's ideas have to similarly overturn? Is computer science closer to psychology than either math or EE? Knuth asserts CS IS different from math in a paper published a year ago. One conference participant said we should perhaps take an artistic approach [I disagreed, but I know a mathematician who thought perhaps music was a good model, and passed this suggestion on]. >If we are a new science where we are laying ground as opposed to describing "real" ground, how should we proceed? How will we know if we have overstepped bounds? Are there bounds? These are a few questions I've thought about and I know the others thought about. It was surprising to me that many of these people you read about were having to grapple with these sophmoric (not in a negative sense) issues. I solicit more questions (better) and comments (too easy to flame). From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene eugene@ames-nas.ARPA
jim@riacs.ARPA (Jim Houston) (03/18/86)
> > >It has been asserted that mathematics is the "Queen of the sciences," > what is the king? [An ex-boss, in attendence, asserts it is physics.] > Physics has probably been the reigning king for a while now. The deterministic world view of physics ( at least it was in Newtonian times ) has effected many other disciplines, including such soft sciences as economics and psychology. It is difficult to name another science that has had as much effect on so many different areas, or that has had fundamentals overturned as often. How long will it be though before Physics loses the crown and who might the usurper be. Computer Science?? Biology?? -- --------------------------------------------------------------- James Houston (415) 694-6921 Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science Mail Stop 230-5, NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035 ARPA: jim@riacs UUCP: {hplabs,ihnp4!ames,decwrl}!riacs!jim ---------------------------------------------------------------
brianu@inmet.UUCP (03/20/86)
It's not a science at all. It's an art. :-)
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (03/23/86)
The purpose of any academic discipline is to study, extend and organize (put into perspective) a field of endeavor. More importantly, it is to realize that it is not 'a science' or 'an art' at all but rather the product of our minds in conjunction with our world. Categories are often more destructive than helpful as attractive as they may seem. Computer science is a broad reaching field encompassing investigations into engineering, psychology, mathematics, linguistics, philosophy, art, communications and just about anything else. What holds it together is the notion of a machine with the ability to functionally represent and test our understanding of our chosen area to concentrate on. Most likely it will break up into many fields, many being absorbed by current disciplines. As an example, for the first time psychology is being studied in a functional, almost engineering sense with a need to produce models and test them (AI), and allow the theories to be judged by this testing. Finally psychology discovers the 20th century. If one had to define computer science more narrowly, it is the attempt to organize these different endeavors and find that which is common to all of them, the limitations and potentialities of the machine they use. This is done both on paper (mathematical approaches) and in the laboratory (the program), hopefully findings from either technique are ultimately interchangeable (the theortical made applied, the experimental described by theory.) At least this portion of computer science will likely remain as a separate study. I believe computer science in general (programming, theory) is like the mathematics it relied on so heavily for its birth (indeed, it may in fact be a new mutation of mathematics itself, to view a program as a proof is probably quite a rational view.) The fact that mathematics as a language and technique permeates engineering, physics and accounting does not leave you confused as to what mathematics is (at least I hope not!), thus is the case with computer science, to organize that which we touch. -Barry Shein, Boston University