home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.logic:1967 sci.philosophy.meta:2428
- Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.philosophy.meta
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!sasghm
- From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
- Subject: Re: Natural Kinds (was re: Are all crows black?)
- Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
- Sender: news@unx.sas.com (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
- Message-ID: <BxGAvC.7Lo@unx.sas.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:30:47 GMT
- References: <1992Nov3.214913.25344@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> <Bx73nu.DMy@unx.sas.com> <1992Nov4.163618.17991@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> <1992Nov4.200546.2196@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <Bx8yvo.6ty@unx.sas.com> <1992Nov8.210316.5922@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
- Nntp-Posting-Host: theseus.unx.sas.com
- Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
- Lines: 54
-
-
- In article <1992Nov8.210316.5922@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers) writes:
-
- |>
- |> In your own mind, it may not be a putdown. But this is a dangerously
- |> Pickwickian manouevre, because the trouble with calling maths "purer"
- |> and "better" than science is that it plays into the hands of those who
- |> would conclude that it is therefore "useless" -- and withdraw funding!
- |> It pays to be pragmatic. :-)
-
- Ah yes. The ultimate academic bugaboo: funding. Everything (even your
- taxonomy of cognitive disciplines) must be a slave to funding.
-
- |> Seriously, it's worth asking *why* the title of science is considered
- |> so honorific, and then (and not before that) asking whether maths (or
- |> computation) does or does not deserve that title.
-
- But what title is *that* title. Is it the title of being *useful* or
- the title of being *science*. Even the hobgoblins of funding don't
- treat these as equivalent.
-
- |> Computer science is the science of discrete processes. The
- |> automatic computing machine -- which is one kind of discrete
- |> process, possessing a universal property which enables it
- |> in principle to simulate any other such process -- is
- |> conventionally taken to stand (both metonymically and
- |> synecdochally) for the whole field. So the problem with
- |> the phrase "computer science" lies not in the word "science",
- |> but in the word "computer": the tool has eclipsed its object.
- |>
- |> Or, again:
- |>
- |> Computer science is discrete applied mathematics. But this
- |> is not to say that the discrete mathematics needed for the
- |> applications always exists before the applications do. So
- |> computer science is not applied discrete mathematics; the
- |> qualifiers do not commute.
- |>
- |> (Comments? Flames? Alternatives? - Myself, I'm not sure whether
- |> the adjective "complex" should somehow also be worked into the
- |> definition(s).)
-
- I don't have a problem with this. But notice that it makes
- CS a subdiscipline of mathematics -- and it still lacks significant
- distinguishing features of the genuine sciences. It also suggests
- that there is (or ought to be) a distinction between CS and
- software engineering along the lines of the distinction between
- (say) applied (or even pure) mathematics and civil engineering.
- But this does not seem to be the case. And it isn't obvious
- that it should be.
- --
- Gary H. Merrill [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
- SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / (919) 677-8000
- sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
-