4 ms·

Just the references here are probably an amazing resource for early computer science, and I'm not going to argue against such a force. Seems to be a lot of une

by netcan 5y ago

Just the references here are probably an amazing resource for early computer science, and I'm not going to argue against such a force. Seems to be a lot of uneasiness, of late, about the way credit is allocated in science. IMO, it's mistaken to point this at the top: nobel laureates, heroic icons like Einstein or Turing. These figures are supposed to be idolized and idealized. Yes, this is "untrue," technically. But, it serves many purposes. A nobel prize win elevates science by singling out scientists for hero status. Achilles elevated Greece by giving Greeks something to collectively aspire to or adulate. If you're already deeply interested in computer science, of course the detailed narrative recognizing dozens of brilliant early computer scientists is richer. Of course! Where poor credit allocation matters isn't historical hero narratives, it's at the working scientist level. The grants & positions level. Here, it's important to be accurate, fair, etc. Being inaccurate, unfair or corrupt at this level creates actual deficits.

simonh 5y ago
Right, we shouldn't underestimate the importance of narratives. We need narratives about the theoretical foundations of computer science, and Turing is the perfect figure to weave many of those narratives around. It's good for young people and the general public, and good for the field. The Turing machine is a key conceptual model for understanding the basics of computation. The Turing Test is a great model for thinking about what being intelligent means. Hardly a week goes by without the term Turing Complete appearing somewhere in a HN comment. The fact that he also played an important role in the design and construction of actual practical computing machines, and did so to fight nazis seals the deal. Of course there's more to it, there's plenty of credit to go around, but Turing is the perfect entry point for people to appreciate and learn more about all the work that went into the founding of computer science. It elevates the profile of the whole field.
- roenxi 5y ago
  We also shouldn't underestimate the importance of truth. Dealing with the world as-it-is has better results than interacting with a story we'd like to be true but isn't. People waste their lives in service of causes and ideas that just are not grounded in reality. Not just in the philosophical sense that we cannot know truth, but in the practical sense of "the outcome you want will not flow from the actions you are taking today". Narratives are inferior to truth when it comes to making decisions.
  - simonh 5y ago
    I'm not advocating telling lies. Sometimes we simplify, and doing so can be perfectly appropriate. Unfortunately that does open the stage for nitpicking and pedantry.
    - sandwall 5y ago
      Story telling is how our society has transferred information since we started to communicate-- understanding the map is not the territory, nor should it be. A beautiful narrative can convey important kernels more efficiently than endless minutiae-- Awareness of this is important and elaborations are helpful for those interested in the details. I'm reminded of, "The Glass Bead Game," which discusses an academic society that forgets the names of contributors since they're all just part of the flow of humanity
      - Retric 5y ago
        The issue with stories is they focus on unimportant bits often for propaganda reasons. Pick some arbitrary first and every country can find someone to play up as a home town hero. The US just happens to be rather quite around who “invented“ electricity but longer lasting incandescent lightbulbs and kites in lightning storms that’s the ticket. The British tend to streamline the Benchley park narrative by dropping the preceding polish contribution etc etc. In that context narratives end up glorifying endless minutiae.
        sandwall 5y ago
        Historians are all storytellers. Critical review is important. I really like this paper which starts by paraphrasing Jane Austen, "i think it quite odd history should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention" : https://www.cmu.edu/epp/people/faculty/research/Fischhoff-For-Those-Condemned-To-Study-The-Past.pdf https://www.cmu.edu/epp/people/faculty/research/Fischhoff-Fo...
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        Arguably our storytelling was an efficient hack in an age before writing. A story is a very high-overhead, low SNR way of communicating kernels of truth, but it's robust over time, so it allowed transfer and accumulation of knowledge across societies and generations. But then we've invented and perfected writing, developed symbolic languages and notations (e.g. math, musical), long-duration storage media for text, and eventually networked digital computers. In terms of communicating and preserving knowledge, stories are pretty much the worst possible option you can choose. We're comfortable with narratives because we didn't have anything else for hundreds of thousands of years. Stories are pretty much hardwired into our brains. But that doesn't make them the right choice, now that we've figured out much better alternatives. More than that, I'm personally suspicious of stories being used in communication. There's no good reason to use them, and there's plenty of bad ones - it so happens that what makes a good story robust over time is the same thing you need to manipulate people into believing lies and shut off critical thinking.
- netcan 5y ago
  Don't forget the tragic way society later betrayed him.
- mangodrunk 5y ago
  I don't think it's true that these narratives (false or true) are helpful, especially when their false. I think it's counterproductive, and ultimately takes away credit from others which can impede collaboration (say one country disagrees with another on who invented something).
breuleux 5y ago
Why do we need idols, though? If there was no narrative, no idols, no celebrities, would people be less motivated to do science? Why do we need to lie to ourselves so? > If you're already deeply interested in computer science, of course the detailed narrative recognizing dozens of brilliant early computer scientists is richer. Of course! Personally I'm mostly uninterested in who did what, but maybe that's just me. It seems obvious to me that nearly every scientific discovery could have been done equally well by millions of people, it's just a matter of who had the resources to be educated, who decided to research the problem, who managed to snipe the answer first, and who had the right connections to get it acknowledged. They're still great achievements, for sure, but they're not the markers of exceptional genius we want to think they are, not for Turing or Einstein, but not for anyone at all, really.
- netcan 5y ago
  >>They're not the markers of exceptional genius we want to think they are, not for Turing or Einstein, but not for anyone at all, really. The point isn't to prove that they're special. The point is that something special happened and these people are designated symbols for that... and they're kind of selected for being good at this. We're not doing this for them, they're dead. The celebrity of Einstein is a deification of his relativity theories. We need idols for our symbolic world, to work without them in the real one.
  - breuleux 5y ago
    But what purpose do these idols or symbols serve, exactly? I'm speaking as someone who doesn't care who came up with relativity and doesn't care whether there is a founding person of computer science or not let alone who that would be, and would like to know what others see. Is it an inspiration thing? A motivation thing?
    - bentonite 5y ago
      I'd say its a bit of both inspiration and motivation. That said, I think the main motivators for these kinds of idols/heroes are to craft ethical or normative stories for how people should (or shouldn't) behave as well as to assist with teaching people theories and concepts. Learning about why correlation doesn't equal causation (and spurrious correlations) is more impactful if you also learn about Wakefield's sins at the same time. He's a villian. Archimedes and the bathtub is a great story - and I learned it in elementary school and still remember it and the lessons it teaches. We like to associate people with events and they help for learning and retaining information.
hyperpallium2 5y ago
An aspect of lionization is a wish and motivation to emulate and become heroic oneself... But one soon realizes you probably won't get heroic credit even if you do contribute something heroic, neutralizing that encouragement. Therefore, you'd better do it for the love of the work itself or for how it helps others. There's no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't mind who gets the credit.
paganel 5y ago
Not scientists but some of the best writers of the 20th century never got a Nobel, I'm thinking especially about Proust and Kafka (and I would say Céline was more worthy of the Nobel than Camus and especially Sartre), I'm sure the same thing happens in science in regards to this Swedish prize.
- netcan 5y ago
  True, but writing has many forms of hero culture. Tolkien doesn't need a nobel, neither does Kafka. They became heroes regardless.
mcguire 5y ago
"Seems to be a lot of uneasiness, of late, about the way credit is allocated in science." This is always been the case---medieval and renaissance thinkers would publish anagrams of their key findings because they didn't want to give someone else the advantage of knowing the finding but also wanted to prove that they thought of the idea. IIRC, Isaac Newton did not publish any of his findings until someone else threatened to publish their independent results. And he's known as the creator of calculus because the British Royal Society got into an academic slap-fight with the French.
simorley 5y ago
> Seems to be a lot of uneasiness, of late, about the way credit is allocated in science. Of late? You should read up on Newton/Leibniz hysterics over who invented calculus. The arguments over who invented the first light bulb, car, etc. Whether greek knowledge ( the foundation of western civilization ) originated in the near east or even in india. Heck, people still argue about who "discovered" america first. There is national, religious, ethnic, racial, gender, sexuality pride tied to "priority". It's not just in science/math, it's applies to everything. > These figures are supposed to be idolized and idealized Why? They weren't particularly good people. Neither were saints. > Achilles elevated Greece by giving Greeks something to collectively aspire to or adulate. Are you talking about science/knowledge or politics? But you are right on the point. It's what this is all about at the end of the day. Politics. Without politics, the discovery/knowledge would be what is important. Because of politics, the people become the focal point.

by netcan 5y ago

simonh 5y ago

Right, we shouldn't underestimate the importance of narratives. We need narratives about the theoretical foundations of computer science, and Turing is the perfect figure to weave many of those narratives around. It's good for young people and the general public, and good for the field. The Turing machine is a key conceptual model for understanding the basics of computation. The Turing Test is a great model for thinking about what being intelligent means. Hardly a week goes by without the term Turing Complete appearing somewhere in a HN comment. The fact that he also played an important role in the design and construction of actual practical computing machines, and did so to fight nazis seals the deal. Of course there's more to it, there's plenty of credit to go around, but Turing is the perfect entry point for people to appreciate and learn more about all the work that went into the founding of computer science. It elevates the profile of the whole field.

roenxi 5y ago
We also shouldn't underestimate the importance of truth. Dealing with the world as-it-is has better results than interacting with a story we'd like to be true but isn't. People waste their lives in service of causes and ideas that just are not grounded in reality. Not just in the philosophical sense that we cannot know truth, but in the practical sense of "the outcome you want will not flow from the actions you are taking today". Narratives are inferior to truth when it comes to making decisions.
- simonh 5y ago
  I'm not advocating telling lies. Sometimes we simplify, and doing so can be perfectly appropriate. Unfortunately that does open the stage for nitpicking and pedantry.
  - sandwall 5y ago
    Story telling is how our society has transferred information since we started to communicate-- understanding the map is not the territory, nor should it be. A beautiful narrative can convey important kernels more efficiently than endless minutiae-- Awareness of this is important and elaborations are helpful for those interested in the details. I'm reminded of, "The Glass Bead Game," which discusses an academic society that forgets the names of contributors since they're all just part of the flow of humanity
    - Retric 5y ago
      The issue with stories is they focus on unimportant bits often for propaganda reasons. Pick some arbitrary first and every country can find someone to play up as a home town hero. The US just happens to be rather quite around who “invented“ electricity but longer lasting incandescent lightbulbs and kites in lightning storms that’s the ticket. The British tend to streamline the Benchley park narrative by dropping the preceding polish contribution etc etc. In that context narratives end up glorifying endless minutiae.
      - sandwall 5y ago
        Historians are all storytellers. Critical review is important. I really like this paper which starts by paraphrasing Jane Austen, "i think it quite odd history should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention" : https://www.cmu.edu/epp/people/faculty/research/Fischhoff-For-Those-Condemned-To-Study-The-Past.pdf https://www.cmu.edu/epp/people/faculty/research/Fischhoff-Fo...
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      Arguably our storytelling was an efficient hack in an age before writing. A story is a very high-overhead, low SNR way of communicating kernels of truth, but it's robust over time, so it allowed transfer and accumulation of knowledge across societies and generations. But then we've invented and perfected writing, developed symbolic languages and notations (e.g. math, musical), long-duration storage media for text, and eventually networked digital computers. In terms of communicating and preserving knowledge, stories are pretty much the worst possible option you can choose. We're comfortable with narratives because we didn't have anything else for hundreds of thousands of years. Stories are pretty much hardwired into our brains. But that doesn't make them the right choice, now that we've figured out much better alternatives. More than that, I'm personally suspicious of stories being used in communication. There's no good reason to use them, and there's plenty of bad ones - it so happens that what makes a good story robust over time is the same thing you need to manipulate people into believing lies and shut off critical thinking.
netcan 5y ago
Don't forget the tragic way society later betrayed him.
mangodrunk 5y ago
I don't think it's true that these narratives (false or true) are helpful, especially when their false. I think it's counterproductive, and ultimately takes away credit from others which can impede collaboration (say one country disagrees with another on who invented something).

breuleux 5y ago

Why do we need idols, though? If there was no narrative, no idols, no celebrities, would people be less motivated to do science? Why do we need to lie to ourselves so? > If you're already deeply interested in computer science, of course the detailed narrative recognizing dozens of brilliant early computer scientists is richer. Of course! Personally I'm mostly uninterested in who did what, but maybe that's just me. It seems obvious to me that nearly every scientific discovery could have been done equally well by millions of people, it's just a matter of who had the resources to be educated, who decided to research the problem, who managed to snipe the answer first, and who had the right connections to get it acknowledged. They're still great achievements, for sure, but they're not the markers of exceptional genius we want to think they are, not for Turing or Einstein, but not for anyone at all, really.

netcan 5y ago
>>They're not the markers of exceptional genius we want to think they are, not for Turing or Einstein, but not for anyone at all, really. The point isn't to prove that they're special. The point is that something special happened and these people are designated symbols for that... and they're kind of selected for being good at this. We're not doing this for them, they're dead. The celebrity of Einstein is a deification of his relativity theories. We need idols for our symbolic world, to work without them in the real one.
- breuleux 5y ago
  But what purpose do these idols or symbols serve, exactly? I'm speaking as someone who doesn't care who came up with relativity and doesn't care whether there is a founding person of computer science or not let alone who that would be, and would like to know what others see. Is it an inspiration thing? A motivation thing?
  - bentonite 5y ago
    I'd say its a bit of both inspiration and motivation. That said, I think the main motivators for these kinds of idols/heroes are to craft ethical or normative stories for how people should (or shouldn't) behave as well as to assist with teaching people theories and concepts. Learning about why correlation doesn't equal causation (and spurrious correlations) is more impactful if you also learn about Wakefield's sins at the same time. He's a villian. Archimedes and the bathtub is a great story - and I learned it in elementary school and still remember it and the lessons it teaches. We like to associate people with events and they help for learning and retaining information.

hyperpallium2 5y ago

An aspect of lionization is a wish and motivation to emulate and become heroic oneself... But one soon realizes you probably won't get heroic credit even if you do contribute something heroic, neutralizing that encouragement. Therefore, you'd better do it for the love of the work itself or for how it helps others. There's no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't mind who gets the credit.

paganel 5y ago

Not scientists but some of the best writers of the 20th century never got a Nobel, I'm thinking especially about Proust and Kafka (and I would say Céline was more worthy of the Nobel than Camus and especially Sartre), I'm sure the same thing happens in science in regards to this Swedish prize.

netcan 5y ago
True, but writing has many forms of hero culture. Tolkien doesn't need a nobel, neither does Kafka. They became heroes regardless.

mcguire 5y ago

"Seems to be a lot of uneasiness, of late, about the way credit is allocated in science." This is always been the case---medieval and renaissance thinkers would publish anagrams of their key findings because they didn't want to give someone else the advantage of knowing the finding but also wanted to prove that they thought of the idea. IIRC, Isaac Newton did not publish any of his findings until someone else threatened to publish their independent results. And he's known as the creator of calculus because the British Royal Society got into an academic slap-fight with the French.

simorley 5y ago

> Seems to be a lot of uneasiness, of late, about the way credit is allocated in science. Of late? You should read up on Newton/Leibniz hysterics over who invented calculus. The arguments over who invented the first light bulb, car, etc. Whether greek knowledge ( the foundation of western civilization ) originated in the near east or even in india. Heck, people still argue about who "discovered" america first. There is national, religious, ethnic, racial, gender, sexuality pride tied to "priority". It's not just in science/math, it's applies to everything. > These figures are supposed to be idolized and idealized Why? They weren't particularly good people. Neither were saints. > Achilles elevated Greece by giving Greeks something to collectively aspire to or adulate. Are you talking about science/knowledge or politics? But you are right on the point. It's what this is all about at the end of the day. Politics. Without politics, the discovery/knowledge would be what is important. Because of politics, the people become the focal point.