Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!pdn!reggie From: reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng Subject: Re: programs in cognitive science Message-ID: <3940@pdn.UUCP> Date: 3 Aug 88 13:55:19 GMT References: <536@buengc.BU.EDU> <595@sdics.ucsd.EDU> <3939@pdn.UUCP> Reply-To: reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) Distribution: all Organization: Paradyne Corporation, Largo FL Lines: 59 In article <3939@pdn.UUCP> colin@pdn.UUCP (Colin Kendall) writes: >In article <595@sdics.ucsd.EDU>, norman@sdics.ucsd.EDU (Donald A. Norman - danorman@ucsd.edu (or .bitnet)) writes: >> [somebody else writes] >> <> <<(Sciences, >> Ever get tired of hearing this old chestnut? I do. Especially as: >> 1. It isn't true. >> Those who like the statement cite whatever field they think most >> poorly of, ignoring the earth sciences, the space sciences, etc. >Not necessarily. I like the statement, and I cite Computer Science. Not >only do I not think poorly of Computer Science, I majored in it and am >pursuing a career in it. But it's not science. The career most of us pursue is not science. But this does not indicate that the discipline studied at a university is also not a science. Most who graduate with a degree in CS go into developing software. That is closer to engineering than science. >> In >> addition, their definition of science is highly idiosyncratic and >> suspect. >When I use the statement, I mean by science "systematized knowledge >derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in >order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied". >What's idiosyncratic or suspect about that? That is not the only >meaning of science, of course, but it's the one the statement means. Colin, we must have the same dictionary! How can you state that the definition you gave is THE one meant in that statement? Perhaps to it is, but not to everyone. Lets examine the other definitions of the term science: (1) the state or fact of knowing; knowledge, (3) a branch of knowledge or study, esp. one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles, and methods, as by experiments and hypotheses, (4) a) the systematized knowledge of nature and the physical world b) any branch of this See NAURAL SCIENCE, (5) skill or technique based upon systematized training. >the statement is not true, instead of attacking those who agree >with it? It is simply that you choose to accept one definition of science as the one you use for the label. Chemistry does not just concern itself with nature, but also with synthetic creations of man using the basic components of nature. Are not computers also such creations? (Molecular computing anyone?) Besides to get back on the subject at hand, cognitive science and many of the other "soft" sciences do involve the narrow definition that you wish to associate with the term. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 NOTE: codas<--->pdn will be gone soon Largo, FL 34649-2826