4 ms·
> To assert that the way problems were solved in 1970 obviously has dramatic lessons for how to solve them in 2025 seems to me to completely miss what we're act
by degamad 1y ago
> To assert that the way problems were solved in 1970 obviously has dramatic lessons for how to solve them in 2025 seems to me to completely miss what we're actually doing with computers.
True they might not all be "dramatic lessons" for us, but to ignore them and assume that they hold no lessons for us is also a tragic waste of resources and hard-won knowledge.
- citizenpaul 1y agoIts because CS is not cared about as a true science for the most part. Nearly all of the field is focused on consolidating power and money dynamics. No one cares to make a comprehensive history since it might give your competitors an edge.
- rippeltippel 1y agoArt and Philosophy are hardly regarded as science, either. Actually, less so. Yet...
- 1718627440 1y agoPhilosophy is definitely a social or formal science (depending on who you ask).
- justin66 1y agoI'm well read on the topic and I've never heard it referred to as "a social or formal science." Where is this coming from?
- 1718627440 1y agoI have thought that's the common definition and doesn't need much thought... My dictionary absolutely implies that, it even claims that all the sciences were split of from Philosophy and that a common modern topic of Philosophy is the theory of science. The point of Philosophy is to define truth in all aspects, how is that not science? It's even in the name: "friend of truth". Philosophy is even more fundamental and formal than mathematics. Mathematics asks what sound systems are, what properties they have and how they can be generalized. Philosophy asks, what something truly is, what it means to know, what it means to have a system and whether it's real. The common trope of going even more fundamental/abstract goes: "biology -> chemistry -> physics -> mathematics -> philosophy"
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- joquarky 1y agoScience used to be referred to as philisophy of nature.
- imtringued 1y agoYou're confusing computer science with economics. The ahistorical nature of classical and neoclassical economics basically declares that history is irrelevant. Economists do not really concern themselves with economic history, like at all.