Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdcsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!davidson
From: davidson@sdcsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Information sciences vs. physical sciences
Message-ID: <84@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 10-Dec-83 19:33:59 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.84
Posted: Sat Dec 10 19:33:59 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Dec-83 01:45:03 EST
References: <2416@ncsu.UUCP>
Organization: EECS Dept., U.C. San Diego
Lines: 49

I am responding to an article claiming that psychology and computer
science arn't sciences.  I think that the author is seriously confused
by his prefered usage of the term ``science''.  The sciences based on
mathematics, information processing, etc., which I will here call
information sciences, e.g., linguistics, computer science, information
science, cognitive science, psychology, operations research, etc., have
very different methods of operation from sciences based upon, for
example, physics.  Since people often view physics as the prototypical
science, they become confused when they look at information sciences.
This is analogous to the confusion of the early grammarians who tried
to understand English from a background in Latin:  They decided that
English was primitive and in need of fixing, and proceeded to create
Grammar schools in which we were all supposed to learn how to speak
our native language properly (i.e., with intrusions of latin grammar).

If someone wants to have a private definition of the word science to
include only some methods of operation, that's their privilege, as
long as they don't want to try to use words to communicate with other
human beings.  But we shouldn't waste too much time definining terms,
when we could be exploring the nature and utility of the methodologies
used in the various disciplines.  In that light, let me say something
about the methodologies of two of the disciplines as I understand and
practice them, respectively.

Physics:  There is here the assumption of a simple underlying reality,
which we want to discover through elegant theorizing and experimenting.
Compared to other disciplines, e.g., experimental psychology, many of
the experimental tools are crude, e.g., the statistics used.  A theoretical
psychologist would probably find the distance that often separates physical
theory from experiment to be enormous.  This is perfectly alright, given
the (assumed) simple nature of underlying reality.

Computer Science:  Although in any mathematically based science one
might say that one is discovering knowledge; in many ways, it makes
better sense in computer science to say that one is creating as much
as discovering.  Someone will invent a new language, a new architecture,
or a new algorithm, and people will abandon older languages, architectures
and algorithms.  A physicist would find this strange, because these objects
are no less valid for having been surpassed (the way an outdated physical
theory would be), but are simply no longer interesting.

Let me stop here, and solicit some input from people involved in other
disciplines.  What are your methods of investigation?  Are you interested
in creating theories about reality, or creating artificial or abstract
realities?  What is your basis for calling your discipline a science,
or do you?  Please do not waste any time saying that some other discipline
is not a science because it doesn't do things the way yours does!

-Greg