3 ms·

There is a big difference between computer science and computer engineering. Science is about understanding. Engineering is about using that understanding for

There is a big difference between computer science and computer engineering. Science is about understanding. Engineering is about using that understanding for building.

slededit 8y ago
Nobody would be discussing the moral implications of scientific discoveries if it didn't ultimately lead to machines that cause effect in the real world. Science and Engineering are inextricably linked in this discussion.
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  > Science and Engineering are inextricably linked in this discussion. Of course they are, but this article is very specifically about the role of the scientist. Not the engineer. Will negative disclosure cause problems for engineers? I don't know. What I do know, is it isn't fair to place that burden of knowledge entirely on scientists while tying their hands behind their back with respect to open discussion in a professional setting. Academic publishing is intended to be open without fear of professional and personal repercussion for increasing factual awareness. Get rid of that and, well, sit back, relax, and I hope we all can enjoy the apocalypse of knowledge, because that's where stuff is headed without the ability to professionally discuss existing problems. > Nobody would be discussing the moral implications of scientific discoveries if it didn't ultimately lead to machines that cause effect in the real world. That's just factually wrong. Mathematics. Philosophers. Logicians. All the living and dead theorists who built the abstract foundations essential for the functioning of our machines. People who deal entirely in the world of the abstract. You don't develop a passion for abstraction because you want something out of reality. You develop a passion for abstraction because reality is sometimes terrible.
  - slededit 8y ago
    > That's just factually wrong. Mathematics. Philosophers. Logicians. All the living and dead theorists who built the abstract foundations essential for the functioning of our machines. People who deal entirely in the world of the abstract. You don't develop a passion for abstraction because you want something out of reality. You develop a passion for abstraction because reality is sometimes terrible. We don't have moral discussions about the discovery of a new law of physics or a mathematical lemma. This only becomes an issue when we can see how it can be applied to some aim. Thus if there were no engineers nobody would consider the scientists moral obligations with the exception of their experiments themselves causing harm. The argument to limiting science is that engineers might take it and create some terrible machine with it. Perhaps the most notorious example being a nuclear bomb. I believe we agree on the role of science, I don't think we agree on what their culpability should be.
    - s-shellfish 8y ago
      > We don't have moral discussions about the discovery of a new law of physics or a mathematical lemma. Abstraction affects mental functionality. It forms expectations by designing a language in which the present can be expected to be predicted within some objective, measurable tolerance. The problem, always has been, and always will be - is that people can't be measured and tested like machines. > This only becomes an issue when we can see how it can be applied to some aim. So yes. That's correct, that's the terrible thing that can be observed and measured when it happens. Prevention is important. > Thus if there were no engineers nobody would consider the scientists moral obligations with the exception of their experiments themselves causing harm. Sorry, no, that again, ridiculous. You think that way. Not everyone thinks the same. Intent. Experimentation is intended to discover in a controlled environment while giving heavy weight to moral implications. People choose to opt in to scientific studies. People trust that process when they make that decision. > The argument to limiting science is that engineers might take it and create some terrible machine with it. Perhaps the most notorious example being a nuclear bomb. Yes, and what makes us think we are so evolved and so advanced to believe we can't accidentally create something similar with present technology - lacking awareness to it's creation? Evolution won't protect us against our own idiocy. Reasoning about computation affects cognition, which has real world consequences that extend to everything else that is not reasoning about computation. That's just all there is to it. > I believe we agree on the role of science, I don't think we agree on what their culpability should be. They should be able to talk about personal, first hand experiences openly without being professionally attacked, first. Second, they should be able to talk about existing problems without fear of whose bottom line it might affect. There should not be blame in systems where everything is hard as heck to understand. Obligation to the truth - yes. Blame for the belief that there was the intent to create a problem by virtue of uncovering one? No. That has shortsightedness written all over it.
      - slededit 8y ago
        I would like to engage more substantively with you, but I don't think I understand where you stand on this issue. Do you agree or disagree with the suggestions in the original article?

There is a big difference between computer science and computer engineering. Science is about understanding. Engineering is about using that understanding for building.

slededit 8y ago

Nobody would be discussing the moral implications of scientific discoveries if it didn't ultimately lead to machines that cause effect in the real world. Science and Engineering are inextricably linked in this discussion.

s-shellfish 8y ago
> Science and Engineering are inextricably linked in this discussion. Of course they are, but this article is very specifically about the role of the scientist. Not the engineer. Will negative disclosure cause problems for engineers? I don't know. What I do know, is it isn't fair to place that burden of knowledge entirely on scientists while tying their hands behind their back with respect to open discussion in a professional setting. Academic publishing is intended to be open without fear of professional and personal repercussion for increasing factual awareness. Get rid of that and, well, sit back, relax, and I hope we all can enjoy the apocalypse of knowledge, because that's where stuff is headed without the ability to professionally discuss existing problems. > Nobody would be discussing the moral implications of scientific discoveries if it didn't ultimately lead to machines that cause effect in the real world. That's just factually wrong. Mathematics. Philosophers. Logicians. All the living and dead theorists who built the abstract foundations essential for the functioning of our machines. People who deal entirely in the world of the abstract. You don't develop a passion for abstraction because you want something out of reality. You develop a passion for abstraction because reality is sometimes terrible.
- slededit 8y ago
  > That's just factually wrong. Mathematics. Philosophers. Logicians. All the living and dead theorists who built the abstract foundations essential for the functioning of our machines. People who deal entirely in the world of the abstract. You don't develop a passion for abstraction because you want something out of reality. You develop a passion for abstraction because reality is sometimes terrible. We don't have moral discussions about the discovery of a new law of physics or a mathematical lemma. This only becomes an issue when we can see how it can be applied to some aim. Thus if there were no engineers nobody would consider the scientists moral obligations with the exception of their experiments themselves causing harm. The argument to limiting science is that engineers might take it and create some terrible machine with it. Perhaps the most notorious example being a nuclear bomb. I believe we agree on the role of science, I don't think we agree on what their culpability should be.
  - s-shellfish 8y ago
    > We don't have moral discussions about the discovery of a new law of physics or a mathematical lemma. Abstraction affects mental functionality. It forms expectations by designing a language in which the present can be expected to be predicted within some objective, measurable tolerance. The problem, always has been, and always will be - is that people can't be measured and tested like machines. > This only becomes an issue when we can see how it can be applied to some aim. So yes. That's correct, that's the terrible thing that can be observed and measured when it happens. Prevention is important. > Thus if there were no engineers nobody would consider the scientists moral obligations with the exception of their experiments themselves causing harm. Sorry, no, that again, ridiculous. You think that way. Not everyone thinks the same. Intent. Experimentation is intended to discover in a controlled environment while giving heavy weight to moral implications. People choose to opt in to scientific studies. People trust that process when they make that decision. > The argument to limiting science is that engineers might take it and create some terrible machine with it. Perhaps the most notorious example being a nuclear bomb. Yes, and what makes us think we are so evolved and so advanced to believe we can't accidentally create something similar with present technology - lacking awareness to it's creation? Evolution won't protect us against our own idiocy. Reasoning about computation affects cognition, which has real world consequences that extend to everything else that is not reasoning about computation. That's just all there is to it. > I believe we agree on the role of science, I don't think we agree on what their culpability should be. They should be able to talk about personal, first hand experiences openly without being professionally attacked, first. Second, they should be able to talk about existing problems without fear of whose bottom line it might affect. There should not be blame in systems where everything is hard as heck to understand. Obligation to the truth - yes. Blame for the belief that there was the intent to create a problem by virtue of uncovering one? No. That has shortsightedness written all over it.
    - slededit 8y ago
      I would like to engage more substantively with you, but I don't think I understand where you stand on this issue. Do you agree or disagree with the suggestions in the original article?