Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!hplabs!hao!ames!eugene
From: eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Computer Science a Science?
Message-ID: <1439@ames.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Mar-86 14:24:55 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.1439
Posted: Sun Mar 16 14:24:55 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Mar-86 07:26:14 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 59

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