5 ms·

> pausing to ask abstract and esoteric questions Is there something in CS that prevents CS majors from asking abstract questions? The CS I know has a large, ab

by irahul 15y ago

> pausing to ask abstract and esoteric questions Is there something in CS that prevents CS majors from asking abstract questions? The CS I know has a large, abstract part and any and all concrete things you see today originated from abstract reasoning. Didn't Lisp originate from an abstract paper implementing a turing-complete machine from basic operators? This is the second post I am replying to which talks about insights and abstract questions which technical(or CS) people supposedly lack. It would really help to have a couple of concrete examples.

jessedhillon 15y ago
The abstractions that philosophy deals with have to do with things like the nature of knowledge and being. For some CS folks this comes as a natural extension of what they know -- thinking about daily experience categorically. If you consider the knowledge and abstraction capability it takes to design the schema for an app -- thinking about the knowledge in the system at a meta level -- philosophy is in some ways analogous to that. However, even if there was a perfectly obvious analogy between ontology in CS and philosophical ontology, I think that many engineers would still forgo thinking deeper about life. (Sorry, I know how condescending that sounds and I don't mean it that way.) > Is there something in CS that prevents CS majors from asking abstract questions? This type of response is annoying. Is there anything that prevents an eight-year-old from learning C and doing your job? Theoretically, no. Practically, yes. It's not the right question, because whether there or isn't something that prevents them from asking those questions, the perception is that they don't do it.
- irahul 15y ago
  > thinking about the knowledge in the system at a meta level -- philosophy is in some ways analogous to that. That isn't what I was looking for. I was responding to "abstract and esoteric questions" and the implications that somehow CS people don't have the knack for the abstract. I am just saying that philosophy might or might not have abstract and esoteric questions(I don't know and don't care), but CS has them for sure and have had even since its genesis. > However, even if there was a perfectly obvious analogy between ontology in CS and philosophical ontology, Why would I care? How does this come into picture at all? I was responding to your abstract questions, which to me came out as somehow philosophy helps you understand CS better. If you didn't mean that, we aren't discussing the same topic. > I think that many engineers would still forgo thinking deeper about life. Again, how does this relate to philosophy and CS majors? And what is deep for me isn't necessarily deep for me. You might like pondering over if god exists and what's the meaning of existence. Sorry to sound condescending, but if that's what you meant about thinking deeper about life, that isn't deep enough for me. I have my personal belief system which changes based on my perception and that's good enough for me.
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    > ...which to me came out as somehow philosophy helps you understand CS better. If you didn't mean that, we aren't discussing the same topic. Not what I said at all. From looking at your responses here and elsewhere on this post, it seems that you have difficulty accepting the idea that other fields of study might present skills that are not ordinarily available to a CS student. I'm sorry you've chosen to take offense -- and become defensive -- to the proposition that different majors offer different skills. This seems like it would be the wrong thread for you to participate in, since that is the fundamental assumption.
    - irahul 15y ago
      > From looking at your responses here and elsewhere on this post, it seems that you have difficulty accepting the idea that other fields of study might present skills that are not ordinarily available to a CS student. I have difficulty accepting the idea philosophy, humanities or any other discipline makes you more competent at CS than CS education itself. If philosophy taught you something valuable, good for you. It didn't teach you CS and didn't make you more competent at CS. You are the one who is having difficulty understanding that your abstract and esoteric questions aren't unique to philosophy, and things which are unique to philosophy don't add anything to make you more competent at CS. > This seems like it would be the wrong thread for you to participate in. This seems like unnecessary fluff. EDIT: On second thoughts, this really is the wrong thread for me to participate in. You keep editing your posts, not because you are correcting a typo or adding a new perspective, but based on if my post is downvoted or not. You use offensive language when my post is grayed, and delete that when it's not.
      - jessedhillon 15y ago
        Nobody made any of the points you claim -- about a humanities education contributing to CS excellence -- and you have been told this already, yet you insist on responding to this imaginary argument. Why you continue to do that is beyond me, nor is it clear to me why you think that abstract reasoning about nodes in a graph is the same as abstract reasoning about life and existence. Your argument -- inasmuch as you have presented one, between your fits of pettiness -- hinges on this idea, presented without any sort of justification, that all abstraction skills are equal. It's as silly as saying that a programmer must know linguistics, since programming results from the study and expression of a language. And therefore, the linguistic field of study presents no benefits over CS, since all programmers know linguistics. (Just saw your edit and I'd like to note that none of your posts here are gray. I don't even know if you and I are responding to the same thread at this point.)
- irahul 15y ago
  > response is annyoying Hive mind at work? You wait to see how others are responding to my posts and then use annoying language? > Is there anything that prevents an eight-year-old from learning C and doing your job? Theoretically, no. Practically, yes. Is there anything that prevents a CS major from thinking at abstract level? Theoretically, no. Practically, no. Does CS encourage abstract reasoning? Yes. > It's not the right question, because whether there or isn't something that prevents them from asking those questions, the perception is that they don't do it. CS comprises both abstract, theoretical aspects as well as concrete applications. If we are talking about that they don't do it in CS context, where does "CS doesn't do abstract" perception came from?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - jessedhillon 15y ago
    > where does "CS doesn't do abstract" perception came from? Hell if I know -- you should be asking yourself, since you're the only one who is making this imaginary claim. If I had to guess, it comes from your deep-seated psychological need to make sure that getting an engineering degree was the correct decision in life, and not one that will ultimately lead you to a lonesome, unhappy and desperate existence in your middle years as a mid-tier engineer of no particular importance. And worse, you might spend those years watching the guys with the humanities degrees become successful leaders of their fields (and yours), starting families and having many children with their beautiful wives. (This foray into the source of that claim, which only you have made, was facetious, mind you.) Or at least that's what I would guess from the degree of defensiveness you've employed to protect your choice of major from attacks that you imagine are being leveled against you -- despite the record clearly showing no such thing has been said. I can't imagine why else you would interpret relatively benign statements about the benefits of other fields as being pointed and offensive like you have.
    - scott_s 15y ago
      I have read several comments on this thread where my understanding of what the commenter meant was that their humanities background gave them a perspective in a technical field that those with purely technical backgrounds did not have. I think that's a similar sentiment to the one that irahul is responding to. You deleted your first reply, probably because you decided it was inappropriate. (I downvoted and flagged it - something I have done only a handful of times.) I don't think this one is much better.
- scott_s 15y ago
  I think his point is about transfer. The typical argument about the value of humanities is that it teaches "critical thinking." This argument has to be made because a humanities education does not teach many skills which are directly useful in a job. For example, not many people are going to get a job where they are asked to write a critical analysis of a book. So, the argument is that the critical thinking skills required to do that analysis will transfer to tasks that are part of a job. I don't disagree with this argument. That is, the critical thinking skills will transfer, even if the specific skills will not. irahul's point is that a CS education requires developing critical thinking skill as well. And if we're going to argue that the critical thinking skills required to write an English essay will transfer, then we must also argue that the critical thinking skills required to design a compiler will also transfer. By the way, what you said is condescending, and I don't know how it could not be.

by irahul 15y ago

jessedhillon 15y ago

The abstractions that philosophy deals with have to do with things like the nature of knowledge and being. For some CS folks this comes as a natural extension of what they know -- thinking about daily experience categorically. If you consider the knowledge and abstraction capability it takes to design the schema for an app -- thinking about the knowledge in the system at a meta level -- philosophy is in some ways analogous to that. However, even if there was a perfectly obvious analogy between ontology in CS and philosophical ontology, I think that many engineers would still forgo thinking deeper about life. (Sorry, I know how condescending that sounds and I don't mean it that way.) > Is there something in CS that prevents CS majors from asking abstract questions? This type of response is annoying. Is there anything that prevents an eight-year-old from learning C and doing your job? Theoretically, no. Practically, yes. It's not the right question, because whether there or isn't something that prevents them from asking those questions, the perception is that they don't do it.

irahul 15y ago
> thinking about the knowledge in the system at a meta level -- philosophy is in some ways analogous to that. That isn't what I was looking for. I was responding to "abstract and esoteric questions" and the implications that somehow CS people don't have the knack for the abstract. I am just saying that philosophy might or might not have abstract and esoteric questions(I don't know and don't care), but CS has them for sure and have had even since its genesis. > However, even if there was a perfectly obvious analogy between ontology in CS and philosophical ontology, Why would I care? How does this come into picture at all? I was responding to your abstract questions, which to me came out as somehow philosophy helps you understand CS better. If you didn't mean that, we aren't discussing the same topic. > I think that many engineers would still forgo thinking deeper about life. Again, how does this relate to philosophy and CS majors? And what is deep for me isn't necessarily deep for me. You might like pondering over if god exists and what's the meaning of existence. Sorry to sound condescending, but if that's what you meant about thinking deeper about life, that isn't deep enough for me. I have my personal belief system which changes based on my perception and that's good enough for me.
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  > ...which to me came out as somehow philosophy helps you understand CS better. If you didn't mean that, we aren't discussing the same topic. Not what I said at all. From looking at your responses here and elsewhere on this post, it seems that you have difficulty accepting the idea that other fields of study might present skills that are not ordinarily available to a CS student. I'm sorry you've chosen to take offense -- and become defensive -- to the proposition that different majors offer different skills. This seems like it would be the wrong thread for you to participate in, since that is the fundamental assumption.
  - irahul 15y ago
    > From looking at your responses here and elsewhere on this post, it seems that you have difficulty accepting the idea that other fields of study might present skills that are not ordinarily available to a CS student. I have difficulty accepting the idea philosophy, humanities or any other discipline makes you more competent at CS than CS education itself. If philosophy taught you something valuable, good for you. It didn't teach you CS and didn't make you more competent at CS. You are the one who is having difficulty understanding that your abstract and esoteric questions aren't unique to philosophy, and things which are unique to philosophy don't add anything to make you more competent at CS. > This seems like it would be the wrong thread for you to participate in. This seems like unnecessary fluff. EDIT: On second thoughts, this really is the wrong thread for me to participate in. You keep editing your posts, not because you are correcting a typo or adding a new perspective, but based on if my post is downvoted or not. You use offensive language when my post is grayed, and delete that when it's not.
    - jessedhillon 15y ago
      Nobody made any of the points you claim -- about a humanities education contributing to CS excellence -- and you have been told this already, yet you insist on responding to this imaginary argument. Why you continue to do that is beyond me, nor is it clear to me why you think that abstract reasoning about nodes in a graph is the same as abstract reasoning about life and existence. Your argument -- inasmuch as you have presented one, between your fits of pettiness -- hinges on this idea, presented without any sort of justification, that all abstraction skills are equal. It's as silly as saying that a programmer must know linguistics, since programming results from the study and expression of a language. And therefore, the linguistic field of study presents no benefits over CS, since all programmers know linguistics. (Just saw your edit and I'd like to note that none of your posts here are gray. I don't even know if you and I are responding to the same thread at this point.)
irahul 15y ago
> response is annyoying Hive mind at work? You wait to see how others are responding to my posts and then use annoying language? > Is there anything that prevents an eight-year-old from learning C and doing your job? Theoretically, no. Practically, yes. Is there anything that prevents a CS major from thinking at abstract level? Theoretically, no. Practically, no. Does CS encourage abstract reasoning? Yes. > It's not the right question, because whether there or isn't something that prevents them from asking those questions, the perception is that they don't do it. CS comprises both abstract, theoretical aspects as well as concrete applications. If we are talking about that they don't do it in CS context, where does "CS doesn't do abstract" perception came from?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  > where does "CS doesn't do abstract" perception came from? Hell if I know -- you should be asking yourself, since you're the only one who is making this imaginary claim. If I had to guess, it comes from your deep-seated psychological need to make sure that getting an engineering degree was the correct decision in life, and not one that will ultimately lead you to a lonesome, unhappy and desperate existence in your middle years as a mid-tier engineer of no particular importance. And worse, you might spend those years watching the guys with the humanities degrees become successful leaders of their fields (and yours), starting families and having many children with their beautiful wives. (This foray into the source of that claim, which only you have made, was facetious, mind you.) Or at least that's what I would guess from the degree of defensiveness you've employed to protect your choice of major from attacks that you imagine are being leveled against you -- despite the record clearly showing no such thing has been said. I can't imagine why else you would interpret relatively benign statements about the benefits of other fields as being pointed and offensive like you have.
  - scott_s 15y ago
    I have read several comments on this thread where my understanding of what the commenter meant was that their humanities background gave them a perspective in a technical field that those with purely technical backgrounds did not have. I think that's a similar sentiment to the one that irahul is responding to. You deleted your first reply, probably because you decided it was inappropriate. (I downvoted and flagged it - something I have done only a handful of times.) I don't think this one is much better.
scott_s 15y ago
I think his point is about transfer. The typical argument about the value of humanities is that it teaches "critical thinking." This argument has to be made because a humanities education does not teach many skills which are directly useful in a job. For example, not many people are going to get a job where they are asked to write a critical analysis of a book. So, the argument is that the critical thinking skills required to do that analysis will transfer to tasks that are part of a job. I don't disagree with this argument. That is, the critical thinking skills will transfer, even if the specific skills will not. irahul's point is that a CS education requires developing critical thinking skill as well. And if we're going to argue that the critical thinking skills required to write an English essay will transfer, then we must also argue that the critical thinking skills required to design a compiler will also transfer. By the way, what you said is condescending, and I don't know how it could not be.