5 ms·

Philosophy is advertised as something more fundamental than logic itself. Here it's advertised as something more fundamental than computer science. But when I

Philosophy is advertised as something more fundamental than logic itself. Here it's advertised as something more fundamental than computer science. But when I read stuff like this I question the veracity of it all. The very first section seems to be talking about "science" and "computer science" then it goes on to talk about ethics... Is this really legit? I mean what "science" means and what "computer science" means is more of a english language problem then some fundamental aspect of reality... and ethics are just rules that govern human behavior and the human condition... does this really need to be merged with the formal fundamentals of computer science? It's like saying english literature is part of quantum theory or that morality is intrinsic to classical mechanics. I'm curious but as an outsider looking in... it looks like a load of BS. Any top tier theoretical mathematicians or hardcore scientists have anything to say about philosophy? Or even the philosophy behind computer science? Is it worth reading this stuff?

j1vms 7y ago
Philosophy is the study of knowledge, including the idea of "knowing", and furthermore even being in a position to know (existence). It is indeed more fundamental, as it was probably the discipline in which first useful breakthroughs were made in human thought. Though we would do well not to confuse being more fundamental, with being more important (as far as people & society today are concerned). In a way, it is the fuzzy wiring that underlies most other disciplines, that you need to poke around in when you run into longstanding, or seemingly intractable problems in what you're trying to do above. See for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20905801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20905801
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  Computer science itself doesn't have ethics. It's like saying arithmetic has ethics. My question is why is philosophy including it as if it's part of the framework of computer science. It makes philosophy seem illegitimate.
  - finolex1 7y ago
    Computer Science is pretty different from arithmetic (heck, that's a philosophical question in itself). Looking at the table of contents, he doesn't seem to be saying algorithms or data structures have ethics - but that a lot of recent developments in Computer Science can help us reckon with issues of what constitutes intelligence or autonomy, and the ethical ramifications that follow.
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      That's what makes it all seem illegitimate. The ethical ramifications of AI are a human quality outside of the computer science itself. Computer science as a discipline like arithmetic has nothing to do with the human condition, it is just an aspect of logic. If philosophy purports to be more fundamental than logic or computer science why does it go on to talk about liberal arts topics of things like ethics or religion? It seems jumbled and disorganized and lacking of formal rigor. Think about it. To use the analogy of arithmetic, the more fundamental theory is number theory. It dives into a lower level description of arithmetic. But then suddenly it starts talking about ethics and the moral implications of using arithmetic on human society. Is this social studies or formal logic?
      - sjg007 7y ago
        Just read the intro, he explains what he means by ethics. There are two ethical questions to answer with respect to computer science. The first is are there decisions we should allow computers to make?
        crimsonalucard 7y ago
        What nuclear missile trajectories should we allow mathematics to calculate? Yes, it's an ethical question that you can ask, but do you realize that this does not mean ethics is part of mathematics? IF you can see how the question above doesn't force mathematics to be part of ethics. Then that same line of reasoning will help you realize how computer science is the exact same thing. The science of computing is entirely different from the application of computing (aka programming) side of it. If philosophy purports to be a lower level description of mathematics/computing... why is it talking about ethics? The heart of computing relies on axioms, anything lower level then that would be an examination of what is an axiom? and what is logic? Not human rights.
finolex1 7y ago
There are different views, but I like to think of philosophy as mapping the terrain of thought. Most scientists don't think much about the scientific method even though they implicitly apply it, but it's nice every once in a while to step back and reflect on the whole endeavor, and that's where philosophy steps in. Obviously, the boundaries are blurred. The study of formal logic straddles both Math and Philosophy. Lots of fields were once under the domain of philosophy before they branched out - Leibniz, Descartes, Russell all made important philosophy contributions as well.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  It would be nice if scientists and philosophers worked closer together. These days a scientist's understanding of the scientific method is usually a bowdlerized version of Karl Popper's work, as passed down from one scientist to another. But ideas do tend to filter through eventually, even if most scientists aren't themselves aware of where they came from.
tndl 7y ago
I think the difference between 'computer science' and just 'science' is definitely non-trivial. And I think that difference has practical applications and changes how we humans think about and interact with those concepts. I don't know if anything in here reflects the nature of reality, but it definitely reflects and can inform how we deal with the nature of human thought on these subjects.
- averros 7y ago
  Soviet academia had an aphorism to the effect that any discipline which contains the word "science" (or "scientific") in its name is not a real science. I.e. "political science", "scientific communism", etc. Makes sense, since real science doesn't need to emphasize the fact that it is a real science :)
dredmorbius 7y ago
It helps, in most conversation though especially in philosophical ones, to be clear of what you do and do not mean by words. For students (and this work is aimed at a university philosophy of comp sci course) the exercise of thinking through (and walking through) definitions is also useful. Philosophy can (and does) get stuck in the weeds, and there's a great deal of philsophy (much of the religious bits, though not all, and certainly others) which was simply based on bad premises and/or logic. The value in revisiting it is several-fold. - You can recognise which present-day discussions are actually very-well-trod ones in the history of philosophy. Whilst some of the questions may indeed be unanswerable, identifying some of the more glaring errors of reason or fact can at least move you to more interesting areas of disagreement. - Much of philosophy provides tools for thinking through questions. Aristotle's Organon (and Bacon's Novum Organum) literally means (new) tool. - The history of philosophy says much about how we ended up thinking and/or knowing what we do, and where we (very frequently) got mislead along the way. Even the false turns are useful to know. - All of Boolean logic grew out of philosophical logic of the 19th century. An obscure text that happens to be one of the handful (literally five or six) cited by Claude Shannon in his foundational work on information theory. (Shannon's work is remarkable on numerous counts, including not only founding virtually an entire new science, but reviving an all-but-dead niche of philosophy, and having scarcely any references.) - The ethics of tools and their use is ultimately much of what they're all about. That and their unintended, especially negative, consequences (a topic not touched on significantly in PoCS so far as I've read). - Philosophy also provides ontologies and taxonomies of subjects and areas. These are useful for understanding them, and help one grasp the landscape. Realising that as you've been driving down the road, the trees you've been seeing are actually all of the same species, or that the road is a loop and they're actually the same tree, is useful. Ontologies also lead to identifying characteristics, capabilities, and limitations of tools. - There are a wealth of references given, most of which should prove highly illuminating and/or significant. Given the perennial HN question of "where do you find material to read", I'd dance and wave and whistle and whoop and say HERE!!! - There are a tremendous numbers of models and myths surrounding all human endeavour. Philosophy helps identify the valid and invalid, separate wheat from chaff, and sort gold from bullshit. Again, the tools, models, background, and ontologies here help with that. Given the copious gobs of bovine matter and fad-driven-development in CS, IT, SV, and HN, you'll be ahead. I've been doing this myself over the past few years, by the way.
bakuninsbart 7y ago
Logic itself is a field of philosophy. As the most fundamental field of human inquiry, philosophy at times even tries to challenge logic itself. (Although this is rather niche) Anyway, if you're looking for the relevance of philosophy to Computer Science, look no further than to these 5 figures who were self-ascribed mathematicians and philosophers: - Augustus DeMorgan - Rudolph Carnap - Gottlob Frege - Kurt Gödel - George Boole Historically, philosophy has been the home of the study of logics, until there was a shift towards faculties of mathematics in the 19th century. - This is a very typical trend. Newton was a philosopher, his groundbreaking work basically created a new discipline. Generally I would argue that the strict separation of disciplines is hindering understanding. Fundamentally, all studies are related in some ways, and I would argue that with the correct mindset, you can even learn valuable lessons in computer science through the study of literature or history.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  Sure but the categorization is off. Shakespeare is doesn't belong in a computer science textbook anymore than ethics.
  - bakuninsbart 7y ago
    I mean, you could use Isabelle/HOL to analyse a passage of Shakespeare, and if done correctly you could probably publish it in CS. If I'm not mistaken, it has been done for legal texts. I haven't read the relevant part of the book yet, but it seems like he's using the Ethics of AI as an example for exactly how Ethics can be relevant to the field of Computer Science, and also as an example on how philosophers actually work. In a course called "Philosophy of Computer Science", this seems quite reasonable.
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      Math and cs can be applied to thing outside of the respective fields even in research papers. Math can be used in architecture, this doesn’t mean it’s part of math. Programs can be used to analyze Shakespeare, this doesn’t mean Shakespeare is computer science. Ethics in philosophy is reasonable which leads to my main point. Is philosophy legit? Why is philosophy purporting to be foundational then suddenly talking about ethics?

j1vms 7y ago

Philosophy is the study of knowledge, including the idea of "knowing", and furthermore even being in a position to know (existence). It is indeed more fundamental, as it was probably the discipline in which first useful breakthroughs were made in human thought. Though we would do well not to confuse being more fundamental, with being more important (as far as people & society today are concerned). In a way, it is the fuzzy wiring that underlies most other disciplines, that you need to poke around in when you run into longstanding, or seemingly intractable problems in what you're trying to do above. See for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20905801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20905801

crimsonalucard 7y ago
Computer science itself doesn't have ethics. It's like saying arithmetic has ethics. My question is why is philosophy including it as if it's part of the framework of computer science. It makes philosophy seem illegitimate.
- finolex1 7y ago
  Computer Science is pretty different from arithmetic (heck, that's a philosophical question in itself). Looking at the table of contents, he doesn't seem to be saying algorithms or data structures have ethics - but that a lot of recent developments in Computer Science can help us reckon with issues of what constitutes intelligence or autonomy, and the ethical ramifications that follow.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    That's what makes it all seem illegitimate. The ethical ramifications of AI are a human quality outside of the computer science itself. Computer science as a discipline like arithmetic has nothing to do with the human condition, it is just an aspect of logic. If philosophy purports to be more fundamental than logic or computer science why does it go on to talk about liberal arts topics of things like ethics or religion? It seems jumbled and disorganized and lacking of formal rigor. Think about it. To use the analogy of arithmetic, the more fundamental theory is number theory. It dives into a lower level description of arithmetic. But then suddenly it starts talking about ethics and the moral implications of using arithmetic on human society. Is this social studies or formal logic?
    - sjg007 7y ago
      Just read the intro, he explains what he means by ethics. There are two ethical questions to answer with respect to computer science. The first is are there decisions we should allow computers to make?
      - crimsonalucard 7y ago
        What nuclear missile trajectories should we allow mathematics to calculate? Yes, it's an ethical question that you can ask, but do you realize that this does not mean ethics is part of mathematics? IF you can see how the question above doesn't force mathematics to be part of ethics. Then that same line of reasoning will help you realize how computer science is the exact same thing. The science of computing is entirely different from the application of computing (aka programming) side of it. If philosophy purports to be a lower level description of mathematics/computing... why is it talking about ethics? The heart of computing relies on axioms, anything lower level then that would be an examination of what is an axiom? and what is logic? Not human rights.

finolex1 7y ago

There are different views, but I like to think of philosophy as mapping the terrain of thought. Most scientists don't think much about the scientific method even though they implicitly apply it, but it's nice every once in a while to step back and reflect on the whole endeavor, and that's where philosophy steps in. Obviously, the boundaries are blurred. The study of formal logic straddles both Math and Philosophy. Lots of fields were once under the domain of philosophy before they branched out - Leibniz, Descartes, Russell all made important philosophy contributions as well.

ChrisSD 7y ago
It would be nice if scientists and philosophers worked closer together. These days a scientist's understanding of the scientific method is usually a bowdlerized version of Karl Popper's work, as passed down from one scientist to another. But ideas do tend to filter through eventually, even if most scientists aren't themselves aware of where they came from.

tndl 7y ago

I think the difference between 'computer science' and just 'science' is definitely non-trivial. And I think that difference has practical applications and changes how we humans think about and interact with those concepts. I don't know if anything in here reflects the nature of reality, but it definitely reflects and can inform how we deal with the nature of human thought on these subjects.

averros 7y ago
Soviet academia had an aphorism to the effect that any discipline which contains the word "science" (or "scientific") in its name is not a real science. I.e. "political science", "scientific communism", etc. Makes sense, since real science doesn't need to emphasize the fact that it is a real science :)

dredmorbius 7y ago

It helps, in most conversation though especially in philosophical ones, to be clear of what you do and do not mean by words. For students (and this work is aimed at a university philosophy of comp sci course) the exercise of thinking through (and walking through) definitions is also useful. Philosophy can (and does) get stuck in the weeds, and there's a great deal of philsophy (much of the religious bits, though not all, and certainly others) which was simply based on bad premises and/or logic. The value in revisiting it is several-fold. - You can recognise which present-day discussions are actually very-well-trod ones in the history of philosophy. Whilst some of the questions may indeed be unanswerable, identifying some of the more glaring errors of reason or fact can at least move you to more interesting areas of disagreement. - Much of philosophy provides tools for thinking through questions. Aristotle's Organon (and Bacon's Novum Organum) literally means (new) tool. - The history of philosophy says much about how we ended up thinking and/or knowing what we do, and where we (very frequently) got mislead along the way. Even the false turns are useful to know. - All of Boolean logic grew out of philosophical logic of the 19th century. An obscure text that happens to be one of the handful (literally five or six) cited by Claude Shannon in his foundational work on information theory. (Shannon's work is remarkable on numerous counts, including not only founding virtually an entire new science, but reviving an all-but-dead niche of philosophy, and having scarcely any references.) - The ethics of tools and their use is ultimately much of what they're all about. That and their unintended, especially negative, consequences (a topic not touched on significantly in PoCS so far as I've read). - Philosophy also provides ontologies and taxonomies of subjects and areas. These are useful for understanding them, and help one grasp the landscape. Realising that as you've been driving down the road, the trees you've been seeing are actually all of the same species, or that the road is a loop and they're actually the same tree, is useful. Ontologies also lead to identifying characteristics, capabilities, and limitations of tools. - There are a wealth of references given, most of which should prove highly illuminating and/or significant. Given the perennial HN question of "where do you find material to read", I'd dance and wave and whistle and whoop and say HERE!!! - There are a tremendous numbers of models and myths surrounding all human endeavour. Philosophy helps identify the valid and invalid, separate wheat from chaff, and sort gold from bullshit. Again, the tools, models, background, and ontologies here help with that. Given the copious gobs of bovine matter and fad-driven-development in CS, IT, SV, and HN, you'll be ahead. I've been doing this myself over the past few years, by the way.

bakuninsbart 7y ago

Logic itself is a field of philosophy. As the most fundamental field of human inquiry, philosophy at times even tries to challenge logic itself. (Although this is rather niche) Anyway, if you're looking for the relevance of philosophy to Computer Science, look no further than to these 5 figures who were self-ascribed mathematicians and philosophers: - Augustus DeMorgan - Rudolph Carnap - Gottlob Frege - Kurt Gödel - George Boole Historically, philosophy has been the home of the study of logics, until there was a shift towards faculties of mathematics in the 19th century. - This is a very typical trend. Newton was a philosopher, his groundbreaking work basically created a new discipline. Generally I would argue that the strict separation of disciplines is hindering understanding. Fundamentally, all studies are related in some ways, and I would argue that with the correct mindset, you can even learn valuable lessons in computer science through the study of literature or history.

crimsonalucard 7y ago
Sure but the categorization is off. Shakespeare is doesn't belong in a computer science textbook anymore than ethics.
- bakuninsbart 7y ago
  I mean, you could use Isabelle/HOL to analyse a passage of Shakespeare, and if done correctly you could probably publish it in CS. If I'm not mistaken, it has been done for legal texts. I haven't read the relevant part of the book yet, but it seems like he's using the Ethics of AI as an example for exactly how Ethics can be relevant to the field of Computer Science, and also as an example on how philosophers actually work. In a course called "Philosophy of Computer Science", this seems quite reasonable.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    Math and cs can be applied to thing outside of the respective fields even in research papers. Math can be used in architecture, this doesn’t mean it’s part of math. Programs can be used to analyze Shakespeare, this doesn’t mean Shakespeare is computer science. Ethics in philosophy is reasonable which leads to my main point. Is philosophy legit? Why is philosophy purporting to be foundational then suddenly talking about ethics?