4 ms·

> Psychology is one of the few sciences that isn't directly traceable back to physics (In fact, I can't think of another one). Computer science is not "directl

> Psychology is one of the few sciences that isn't directly traceable back to physics (In fact, I can't think of another one). Computer science is not "directly traceable back to physics."

tpm 8y ago
Well, time and space constraints are quite prominent in CS, and both are very physical.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
melq 8y ago
My interpretation of what he means by 'traceable back to physics' is that in most so-called 'hard sciences' (biology, chemistry, computation etc) the phenomena of interest can be formally described in terms of math/physics. Assuming I'm not off-base there, I think the distinction is that unlike neuroscience, psychology often seeks to explain things by correlating data/observations rather than describing the underlying physiology.
- justin66 8y ago
  > the phenomena of interest can be formally described in terms of math/physics The theoretical parts of computer science that do not get broken out academically into separate engineering disciplines (wherein physics is quite relevant) are really just branches of mathematics, without any physics involved. > I think the distinction is that unlike neuroscience, psychology often seeks to explain things by correlating data/observations rather than describing the underlying physiology. I don't know a huge amount about psychology but that sounds fair. Psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience all inform one another. I don't think it's quite accurate (or perhaps it's just needlessly pejorative) to suggest, as the OP does, that psychology has hit a "dead end" when the phenomenon under study requires the application of psychiatry or neuroscience in order to be more fully understood. On the contrary, it sounds like an indication that the psychologists might have discovered something interesting.
  - melq 8y ago
    > Psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience all inform one another. I totally agree. I'm not making any claims about the validity or worth of psychology, I just think the distinction OP was referring to is worth pointing out. I think ideally we would understand everything from a physiological perspective, but until that time comes there are plenty of cases where we can benefit from acting on imperfect information. An imperfect example: I don't believe the mechanism that SSRI medicines work on is well understood, but for a lot of people they are obviously beneficial.
Retra 8y ago
Why do you say that?
- SolarNet 8y ago
  It's closer to a sibling of mathematics. Albeit independent in a lot of ways. I would say "Computer Science" often ends up referring to many different disciplines: * The "mathematics" of computation (the British often call computer science informatics, and I think they might be closer). Information theory, computability theory, automata, etc. This would be the theory side of "computer science". But it is more it's own independent sort of mathematics. * A science about what can be computed effectively, what works best, and other questions using empirical testing. This would be the "applied informatics", or the actual term "computer science". A computer has as much to do with computer science as telescopes do with astronomy, they are a supremely useful tool, and most scientists are probably pretty good at using them. * Programming, this is the vocational skill, that anyone can learn, that is informed from what we know of the science. * Software Engineering, this is the primary engineering discipline of the science. In the context of physics this would be like a civil engineer or something, or like a specialized electrical engineer (like compared to physics degree specialized in electromagnetism). * IT/MIS, this is what most people think when you say computer scientist. But this is more like a specialized technician who maintains computers. And are like 3 degrees removed from the core of the informatics (informatics->science->engineering/programming->maintenance). So in relation to the larger issue of the thread: In so far as mathematics came from physics (e.g. a tool to study nature, considering most strides in mathematics have come from people who could also loosely be described as physicists (like Newton and Plato, etc.) it's not a major stretch), computer science sort of came from mathematics, transitively it came from physics.
  - justin66 8y ago
    > So in relation to the larger issue of the thread: In so far as mathematics came from physics (e.g. a tool to study nature, considering most strides in mathematics have come from people who could also loosely be described as physicists (like Newton and Plato, etc.) it's not a major stretch), computer science sort of came from mathematics, transitively it came from physics. I really respect the effort here, but formal, productive mathematics predates anything we'd call physics (or the scientific method) to such a huge extent that I think this is a weak conclusion. But, on the other hand, it wouldn't have ever occurred to me to call Plato a physicist.
spacehome 8y ago
Computer science isn't really a science, though. It's more like a branch of mathematics.
- justin66 8y ago
  I agree with the second part but I'm struggling with what's informing the first part of your statement there. It doesn't seem to me that these are mutually exclusive, and it seems to me the assumption must be that if the experimentation and testing involved in theoretical CS do not involve physical phenomena, they aren't really part of what we consider the scientific method. I'm a little surprised by this.
  - spacehome 8y ago
    The scientific method is not really a core part of computer science in the same way that it's not really a part of mathematics. Sure, there certainly is a such thing as experimental mathematics and using simulations and experiments to guide mathematical intuitions, but you can't directly use the outcome of experiments to prove a theorem. Computer science (as distinguished from software engineering or computer engineering) is about what's possible given a certain model of computing. It's really just a kind of math, and is not affected by what's possible in this universe. (Though what we choose to focus on certainly is, just like math.) "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Dijkstra "Computer science is not about machines, in the same way that astronomy is not about telescopes. There is an essential unity of mathematics and computer science." - Fellows
    - jacoblambda 8y ago
      I would argue that the scientific method isn't as much about using experimental results to prove theorems as much as it is building a model and repeatedly verifying/modifying it until it is consistent. In that aspect experiments are not dissimilar from tests in software and examples in mathematics. They serve as a single point that demonstrates a certain behaviour of the final model. Sure in pure mathematics you can derive solutions using pure logic however if a model looks sound but an example shows up that disagrees with the model then there is obviously a flaw somewhere. Similarly in physical sciences, experiments are data-points that constrain a model of the system. As physical sciences unfortunately don't have the luxury of using pure logic to derive models, they are stuck with using just these "tests". As you said computer science is more or less a subset of mathematics. Because of this I would say that they are both true sciences, they just have a few extra tools at their disposal compared to the rest of the sciences.

> Psychology is one of the few sciences that isn't directly traceable back to physics (In fact, I can't think of another one). Computer science is not "directly traceable back to physics."

tpm 8y ago

Well, time and space constraints are quite prominent in CS, and both are very physical.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

melq 8y ago

My interpretation of what he means by 'traceable back to physics' is that in most so-called 'hard sciences' (biology, chemistry, computation etc) the phenomena of interest can be formally described in terms of math/physics. Assuming I'm not off-base there, I think the distinction is that unlike neuroscience, psychology often seeks to explain things by correlating data/observations rather than describing the underlying physiology.

justin66 8y ago
> the phenomena of interest can be formally described in terms of math/physics The theoretical parts of computer science that do not get broken out academically into separate engineering disciplines (wherein physics is quite relevant) are really just branches of mathematics, without any physics involved. > I think the distinction is that unlike neuroscience, psychology often seeks to explain things by correlating data/observations rather than describing the underlying physiology. I don't know a huge amount about psychology but that sounds fair. Psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience all inform one another. I don't think it's quite accurate (or perhaps it's just needlessly pejorative) to suggest, as the OP does, that psychology has hit a "dead end" when the phenomenon under study requires the application of psychiatry or neuroscience in order to be more fully understood. On the contrary, it sounds like an indication that the psychologists might have discovered something interesting.
- melq 8y ago
  > Psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience all inform one another. I totally agree. I'm not making any claims about the validity or worth of psychology, I just think the distinction OP was referring to is worth pointing out. I think ideally we would understand everything from a physiological perspective, but until that time comes there are plenty of cases where we can benefit from acting on imperfect information. An imperfect example: I don't believe the mechanism that SSRI medicines work on is well understood, but for a lot of people they are obviously beneficial.

Retra 8y ago

Why do you say that?

SolarNet 8y ago
It's closer to a sibling of mathematics. Albeit independent in a lot of ways. I would say "Computer Science" often ends up referring to many different disciplines: * The "mathematics" of computation (the British often call computer science informatics, and I think they might be closer). Information theory, computability theory, automata, etc. This would be the theory side of "computer science". But it is more it's own independent sort of mathematics. * A science about what can be computed effectively, what works best, and other questions using empirical testing. This would be the "applied informatics", or the actual term "computer science". A computer has as much to do with computer science as telescopes do with astronomy, they are a supremely useful tool, and most scientists are probably pretty good at using them. * Programming, this is the vocational skill, that anyone can learn, that is informed from what we know of the science. * Software Engineering, this is the primary engineering discipline of the science. In the context of physics this would be like a civil engineer or something, or like a specialized electrical engineer (like compared to physics degree specialized in electromagnetism). * IT/MIS, this is what most people think when you say computer scientist. But this is more like a specialized technician who maintains computers. And are like 3 degrees removed from the core of the informatics (informatics->science->engineering/programming->maintenance). So in relation to the larger issue of the thread: In so far as mathematics came from physics (e.g. a tool to study nature, considering most strides in mathematics have come from people who could also loosely be described as physicists (like Newton and Plato, etc.) it's not a major stretch), computer science sort of came from mathematics, transitively it came from physics.
- justin66 8y ago
  > So in relation to the larger issue of the thread: In so far as mathematics came from physics (e.g. a tool to study nature, considering most strides in mathematics have come from people who could also loosely be described as physicists (like Newton and Plato, etc.) it's not a major stretch), computer science sort of came from mathematics, transitively it came from physics. I really respect the effort here, but formal, productive mathematics predates anything we'd call physics (or the scientific method) to such a huge extent that I think this is a weak conclusion. But, on the other hand, it wouldn't have ever occurred to me to call Plato a physicist.

spacehome 8y ago

Computer science isn't really a science, though. It's more like a branch of mathematics.

justin66 8y ago
I agree with the second part but I'm struggling with what's informing the first part of your statement there. It doesn't seem to me that these are mutually exclusive, and it seems to me the assumption must be that if the experimentation and testing involved in theoretical CS do not involve physical phenomena, they aren't really part of what we consider the scientific method. I'm a little surprised by this.
- spacehome 8y ago
  The scientific method is not really a core part of computer science in the same way that it's not really a part of mathematics. Sure, there certainly is a such thing as experimental mathematics and using simulations and experiments to guide mathematical intuitions, but you can't directly use the outcome of experiments to prove a theorem. Computer science (as distinguished from software engineering or computer engineering) is about what's possible given a certain model of computing. It's really just a kind of math, and is not affected by what's possible in this universe. (Though what we choose to focus on certainly is, just like math.) "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Dijkstra "Computer science is not about machines, in the same way that astronomy is not about telescopes. There is an essential unity of mathematics and computer science." - Fellows
  - jacoblambda 8y ago
    I would argue that the scientific method isn't as much about using experimental results to prove theorems as much as it is building a model and repeatedly verifying/modifying it until it is consistent. In that aspect experiments are not dissimilar from tests in software and examples in mathematics. They serve as a single point that demonstrates a certain behaviour of the final model. Sure in pure mathematics you can derive solutions using pure logic however if a model looks sound but an example shows up that disagrees with the model then there is obviously a flaw somewhere. Similarly in physical sciences, experiments are data-points that constrain a model of the system. As physical sciences unfortunately don't have the luxury of using pure logic to derive models, they are stuck with using just these "tests". As you said computer science is more or less a subset of mathematics. Because of this I would say that they are both true sciences, they just have a few extra tools at their disposal compared to the rest of the sciences.