Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 5 Issue 223
AIList Digest Tuesday, 29 Sep 1987 Volume 5 : Issue 223
Today's Topics:
Philosophy - Is Computer Science Science? Or is it Art?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 Sep 87 14:18:24 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!houdi!marty1@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (M.BRILLIANT)
Subject: Re: Is Computer Science Science?
In article <1073@aurora.UUCP>, shafto@aurora.UUCP (Michael Shafto) writes:
> .... I think if you
> adopt the position that Real Science is about Nature, and
> that mathematics is not Real Science, then .... either
> (a) mathematicians don't make discoveries, or (b) they
> make discoveries about the properties of formal systems
> or systems of abstract descriptions, and that THESE are
> not part of Nature. If you follow (a), then you confine
> yourself to a limited group of discussants who share your
> idiosyncratic notion of 'discovery'; if you follow (b), then
> you put the content of mathematics somewhere outside Nature.
But formal systems are a product of the human mind, and the human mind
(as a feature of _Homo_sapiens_) is a part of Nature. Science,
mathematics, literature, and other intellectual activities are things
humans do because of our innate capacities and social norms.
> Someone (perhaps Lakatos or Feyerabend) said that scientists
> know about as much about science as fish know about
> hydrology. This is well illustrated whenever scientists
> quit DOING science and start talking about it.
There are scientific disciplines (mostly less formally developed than
other disciplines like physics) that deal with the study of human
activities. One example is anthropology. I think the question "Is
computer science a science?" belongs to one of those disciplines.
Our problem when we work with computers is less abstruse. All we have
to know is whether we can succesfully communicate if we use the term
'Computer Science'. Obviously we can. Nobody complained that the
title question ("Is Computer Science Science") is ambiguous. We all
understand that the word "science" in the phrase "computer science"
is not the same as the word "science" standing alone.
M. B. Brilliant Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
------------------------------
Date: 23 Sep 87 03:41:06 GMT
From: jsnyder@june.cs.washington.edu (Hei Yu)
Subject: Re: Is Computer Science Science?
In article <2835@ames.arpa> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>
>W. Daniel Hillis The Connection Machine, MIT Press, 1986,
>Last Chapter entitled something like "Why Computer Science is No Good"
>Says CS lacks scale, symmetry, and locality of effect.
As I recall, Ehud Shapiro's dissertation "Automatic Debugging" (MIT Press)
included some similar kind of grousing about CS having a "flat" structure
with lots of incomparable elements.
jsnyder@june.cs.washington.edu.arpa John R. Snyder
{ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!uw-beaver!jsnyder Dept. of Computer Science, FR-35
University of Washington
206/543-7798 Seattle, WA 98195
------------------------------
Date: 24 Sep 87 00:49:03 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.)
Subject: A quote from fortune.dat on science
This appeared on logout:
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
strings /usr/games/lib/fort* | egrep Science
will get it.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 87 10:50:38 PDT
From: Stuart Ferguson <shf@solar.stanford.edu>
Reply-to: shf@solar.UUCP (Stuart Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Is Computer Science Science? Or is it Art?
+-- cdfk@hplb.CSNET (Caroline Knight) writes:
| ... I believe that in software there is a better analogy with art
| and illustration than engineering or science. I have noticed that this
| is not welcomed by many people in computing but this might be because
| they know so little of the thought processes and planning that go on
| behind the development of, say, a still life or an advertising poster.
This line of thinking appeals to me alot (and I'm a "person in computing,"
having 10+ years programming experience). I can apreciate this article
because my own thinking has led me to somewhat the same place regarding
"Computer Science."
My own favorite art form that parallels programming is literature (and all
forms of writing or word-smithy). Like programming, writing has a
tremendous number of practical uses in our society, and only a handful of
writers call themselves "artists." Yet the person who writes as an artist
has a power of expression that a "hack" writer lacks.
| What is useful that can come of this analogy? Here are some
| suggetions:-
| Training: An artist will frequently learn their own style through
| meticulous study of previous greats (whose great software is there for
| us to emmulate?).
Computer Science educators could certainly learn to "cultivate the artistic
temperment." There are techniques and information to learn and study in
both art and programming, but no art teacher would ever think that learning
the techniques will make the student a great artist. The same is true for
programmers.
| At first working from nature is important although more freedom and
| greater abstraction will come later. ...
Excellent analogy. The first programs I wrote were simulations of physical
systems (lunar lander games, spacewar games, billiard ball atom simulations
and 3D graphics rendering of simulated worlds) or real-world problems (like
tic-tac-toe or the traveling salesman problem). Only after mastering these
did I move on to writing parsers, text editors and compilers -- the more
abstract end of the scale.
| Aids for producing mockups - for instance cartoonists use sheets of
| shading which can be cut to fit the required area - in software we
| need some such things to allow us to prototype with hints at detail
| without putting it all in.
Yes, and here is where programming diverges from the analogy of illustration.
Projects in illustration are typically small scale (although I'm not involved
in the art so I can't really say!) whereas programming projects can be
enormous requiring man-years of work and huge volumes of code and are often
created by teams rather than individual artists. I think the analogy of
an epic novel or some other writing effort is more appropriate.
| Aids for throwing stuff away! How many novices or less than expert
| programmers cling to the stuff they've written when it needs throwing
| out and redesigning from scratch! This is like the advice given in
| school not to use an eraser - of course eventually the artist knows
| when it is worth using one but at first it is better to concentrate on
| developing the ability to create smoothly and without fiddling.
Amen! Here again I think the writing analogy works well. Can you imagine
what a novel would sound like if the author never did any re-writing? Or
if the author had a few scenes that he had written and tried to work
them into one large story without re-writing any of the smaller scenes?
Rapid prototyping in programming is akin to a first draft in writing. It
allows the programmer to get ideas out on paper (so to speak) where he can
evaluate them objectivly and see what needs changing or re-thinking.
My writing improved immeasurably when I discovered that I could actaully
throw something that I had writen away and re-write it, and the lesson
was not lost on my programming. Often people don't have the courage to
throw something away that works, and it requires a certain ammount of
mastery of one's art to do the same thing and do it better.
| Caroline Knight cdfk@lb.hp.co.uk
| cdfk@hplb.csnet
------------------------------
Date: 24 Sep 87 12:53:54 GMT
From: uwslh!lishka@speedy.wisc.edu (Christopher Lishka)
Subject: Re: Is Computer Science Science?
In article <1318@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes:
>In article <1073@aurora.UUCP>, shafto@aurora.UUCP (Michael Shafto) writes:
>
>> Someone (perhaps Lakatos or Feyerabend) said that scientists
>> know about as much about science as fish know about
>> hydrology. This is well illustrated whenever scientists
>> quit DOING science and start talking about it.
>
>Our problem when we work with computers is less abstruse. All we have
>to know is whether we can succesfully communicate if we use the term
>'Computer Science'. Obviously we can. Nobody complained that the
>title question ("Is Computer Science Science") is ambiguous. We all
>understand that the word "science" in the phrase "computer science"
>is not the same as the word "science" standing alone.
>
I've only caught the tail-end of this discussion, but I'd like to
insert a few comments of my own here. This discussion about whether
or not Computer Science is *Science* or *Real*Science* reminds quite a
bit of a local (and not so local) phenomena in politics here in
Madison. A lot of liberals (hey, I like them better than
conservatives, generally) go around toting themselves as
*Politically*Correct*, and label those who do agree with their views
as not begin *Politically*Correct*. It seems to me that this is where
this kind of discussion leads. Someone will go up to a Comp. Sci.
person and say I'm a *Real*Scientist*, but your not!"
My comment is "why bother?" Why put labels on another person like
that? I like to think that research which I will do in the future
will be in the realms of science and scientific inquiry, and that my
friends and other C.S. people are also doing useful scientific work.
Granted, what I am doing now is not really scientific 'cause I'm just
programming for a living (to get through school), but you can find
that kind of work in any of the traditional *Sciences*.
A final note: I heartily agree with the two comments I've included
above. As long as the label "Computer Science" works and serves its
purpose, why not leave it alone. It would seem that time spent
bickering about this sort of thing was much better spent doing
research, or programmning, or whatever. I would suspect that the
people *really* doing scientific research (whatever that means) don't
care what you call them, but would rather work at the answers they are
trying to find to the unanswered questions around them.
Disclaimer: my thoughts are my own and noone else's, except maybe my
Cockatiels'.
-Chris
--
Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp
Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu
\{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka
------------------------------
Date: 24 Sep 87 17:52:02 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa (Eugene Miya N.)
Subject: Re: Is Computer Science Science? (Funding)
Status Quo? Hopefully a short note:
The reason why you have to make some clear distinctions care partially
be read in the latest CPSR [Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility] Newsletter. It appears in the halls of places like
Ames, JPL, DOE Labs, the NAS (Natl. Acad. Sci), NSF, etc. Basically if
you are not a science, you don't get funding from those Science
Agencies.
This is a difference in Geography (seen as an art) and Geology.
I studied remote sensing for several years. The fact that it was in a
geography --->cartography -->graph --> "art" department was a big
minus. RS is pretty respectable in some circles, and like AI, disreputable
in other circles. (arrows for Mike Shafto ;-)
The level of funding CS in non-military work is dropping. This is okay
if you don't mind working on ALVs, Pilots Associates, etc. I believe
AI should be funded, but for it's improvement, not rediscoveries and
rehashes hashes of things done 20 years ago. You are more than welcome
to do AI-research/CS-research, so long as you have money.
P.S. I mentioned JPL because I took one noted scientist to a CS lab
(graphics) and he came away saying, "Nice pictures, but what's the use?"
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
"You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
"Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize."
{hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene
------------------------------
Date: 24 Sep 87 15:53:25 GMT
From: shafto@ames-aurora.arpa (Michael Shafto)
Subject: Re: A quote from fortune.dat on science
In article <2858@ames.arpa> eugene@nike.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>This appeared on logout:
>Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
>
>strings /usr/games/lib/fort* | egrep Science
>will get it.
And always remember Dr. Science's line (Duck's Breath
Mystery Theater): "There is a thin line between ignorance
and arrogance. I have managed to erase that line."
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
