The Philosophy of Computer Science
plato.stanford.edu
The Philosophy of Computer Science
1–10 of 51 posts
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#2Gotta say, I've never ever considered "the Ontology of Programs" or "The Epistemological Status of Computer Science" before. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but I do wonder if some academics are really stretching to justify the latest grant money.
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#3Gotta say, I've never ever considered "the Ontology of Programs" or "The Epistemological Status of Computer Science" before. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but I do wonder if some academics are really stretching to justify the latest grant money.
> Ontology of programs
The presuppositions of programs or to program
Example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0602053v3.pdf
> The epistemological status of computer science
Do Neural Nets learn or memorize? What's the difference and how do we know what Neural Nets do?
Example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.05394.pdf
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#4Gotta say, I've never ever considered "the Ontology of Programs" or "The Epistemological Status of Computer Science" before. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but I do wonder if some academics are really stretching to justify the latest grant money.
> Ontology of programs The presuppositions of programs or to program Example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0602053v3.pdf > The epistemological status of computer science Do Neural Nets learn or memorize? What's the difference and how do we know what Neural Nets do? Example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.05394.pdf
Or one of my personal favorites, the Epistemology of Computer Simulations in Science:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simulations-science/#EpiC...
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#5Gotta say, I've never ever considered "the Ontology of Programs" or "The Epistemological Status of Computer Science" before. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but I do wonder if some academics are really stretching to justify the latest grant money.
Are you posting your opinion for Grant money? Or are there other things that motivate people to think about things and express their opinion?
There is no need to disparage people who geek out about edge cases in classification systems.
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#6Honest question: is this useful?
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#7Gotta say, I've never ever considered "the Ontology of Programs" or "The Epistemological Status of Computer Science" before. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but I do wonder if some academics are really stretching to justify the latest grant money.
> Ontology of programs The presuppositions of programs or to program Example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0602053v3.pdf > The epistemological status of computer science Do Neural Nets learn or memorize? What's the difference and how do we know what Neural Nets do? Example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.05394.pdf
Comparing and contrasting how computers think and learn compared to us certainly is an interesting idea. I tend to think of myself as epistemologically agnostic, but not for lack of trying. I haven't kept up to speed on neural net development, do there could be some fascinating insights there.
Thanks for the links. I'll definitely check this out.
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#8Gotta say, I've never ever considered "the Ontology of Programs" or "The Epistemological Status of Computer Science" before. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but I do wonder if some academics are really stretching to justify the latest grant money.
Are you posting your opinion for Grant money? Or are there other things that motivate people to think about things and express their opinion? There is no need to disparage people who geek out about edge cases in classification systems.
I don't think I've disparaged anyone here. Being skeptical is one of the oldest traditions in philosophy. If one can't handle skepticism, they are in the wrong field.
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#9Honest question: is this useful?
Sure: It's designed, like any qualitative model, to yield leverage. Know the laws, understand the principles, and soon you can pull off something amazing. Maybe it guides you into a career path within the broad field of CS, or perhaps you use the principles as metaphor-templates for your personal CS education. "In what way could this Hello World program be described as a mathematical object? Is it an axiomatic theory? What is that?" etc.
What I find problematic about the design here, however, is that it is overly referential at the cost of direct information transfer to the reader. Rather than communicate a logical chain of thought regarding a principle, it communicates that such-and-such a thing is thought by so-and-so to be a this-or-that. It seems to have been produced within a system that prioritizes thought-originator-referencing. Which would be fine except I'd imagine that most people who read "The Philosophy of Computer Science" probably aren't expecting what seems a lot like an extended bibliography.
Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you posting your opinion for Grant money? Or are there other things that motivate people to think about things and express their opinion? There is no need to disparage people who geek out about edge cases in classification systems.
I don't think I've disparaged anyone here. Being skeptical is one of the oldest traditions in philosophy. If one can't handle skepticism, they are in the wrong field.
Laziness is not skepticism.