5 ms·

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.
- mikec3010 8y ago
  My position is that CS is a bunch of proofs about Turing machines which can be implemented in transistors which are productions of our mastery of physics. You could try to say the same thing about psych being implemented by neurons, but it's not directly traceable. You can try building up from neural networks, and backtrack from Freud's drive/defense model, but there is an insurmountable gap in between.

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.
mikec3010 8y ago
My position is that CS is a bunch of proofs about Turing machines which can be implemented in transistors which are productions of our mastery of physics. You could try to say the same thing about psych being implemented by neurons, but it's not directly traceable. You can try building up from neural networks, and backtrack from Freud's drive/defense model, but there is an insurmountable gap in between.