Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Philosophy of Computer Science (2013)

plato.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science (2013)

#11

Post by __Joker »

walterbell wrote: post #6

"Who is the most original and the most versatile intellect that the Americas have so far produced? The answer "Charles S. Peirce" is uncontested, because any second would be so far behind as not to be worth nominating. Mathematician, astronomer, chemist, geodesist, surveyor, cartographer, metrologist, spectroscopist, engineer, inventor; psychologist, philologist, lexicographer, historian of science, mathematical econ…

Apologies, if I am ignorant here. But what is this quote and how it is pertinent to the OP ?

Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science (2013)

#12

Post by tormeh »

Madmallard wrote: post #3
yzzxy wrote: post #2

I'm considering several undergrad degree programs in computer science through university philosophy departments. Has anyone had a similar experience who could share their feedback? I've really enjoyed reading the basic philosophy I've covered so far and things like decision and game theory also fascinate me. I think it could also be a good track to AI research, though probably not the modern machine learning style? A…

Major in the most practical stuff, minor in the interesting stuff. I'd say CS/EECS major, Philsophy and Math minors with focuses in AI for everything. You have the option after that for doing AI in a master's or PHD program.

But be warned: Modern AI is really just glorified statistics.

Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science (2013)

#13

Post by hkmurakami »

SoloMune wrote: post #5
tjradcliffe wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an undergraduate degree in engineering, a PhD in physics and some post-graduate education in philosophy, and have worked closely with philosophers on real problems in epistemology and metaphysics, mostly around identity theory. On the basis of that experience, I would recommend focusing on a traditional CS or EECS degree, and take philosophy on the side. By taking a traditional degree you will provide yourself…

What is the difference between EECS vs Computer Engineering? I want to major in engineering while also gaining experience in Computer Science.

More pertinent is what the program actually does (depends on school) rather than the surface level label.

Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science (2013)

#14

Post by chrisdevereux »

tjradcliffe wrote: post #4
yzzxy wrote: post #2

I'm considering several undergrad degree programs in computer science through university philosophy departments. Has anyone had a similar experience who could share their feedback? I've really enjoyed reading the basic philosophy I've covered so far and things like decision and game theory also fascinate me. I think it could also be a good track to AI research, though probably not the modern machine learning style? A…

I have an undergraduate degree in engineering, a PhD in physics and some post-graduate education in philosophy, and have worked closely with philosophers on real problems in epistemology and metaphysics, mostly around identity theory. On the basis of that experience, I would recommend focusing on a traditional CS or EECS degree, and take philosophy on the side. By taking a traditional degree you will provide yourself…

I won't bother dazzling everyone with a list of qualifications, but you're really misrepresenting Positivism here. Positivism is really the idea that being empirically testable is a necessary condition for being both non-trivial and meaningful. Not (except maybe when being polemical, as Ayer could sometimes) that metaphysics is necessarily unverifiable.

Most of the problems we class as "metaphysics" probably aren't empirically verifiable, but if a few turn out to be, it isn't a big problem for the positivist program. Their objection to metaphysics isn't as principled as you make it out to be. It just falls out of verificationist semantics.

So if a physicist manages to empirically verify a few things that might have seemend metaphysical, then cool, turns out they were doing physics not metaphysics.

Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science (2013)

#15

Post by walterbell »

__Joker wrote: post #11
walterbell wrote: post #6

"Who is the most original and the most versatile intellect that the Americas have so far produced? The answer "Charles S. Peirce" is uncontested, because any second would be so far behind as not to be worth nominating. Mathematician, astronomer, chemist, geodesist, surveyor, cartographer, metrologist, spectroscopist, engineer, inventor; psychologist, philologist, lexicographer, historian of science, mathematical econ…

Apologies, if I am ignorant here. But what is this quote and how it is pertinent to the OP ?

He was a philosopher, whose work in the late 1800s was a precursor to computer science. Practical applications have been found in modern research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce

"Peirce considered himself, first and foremost, a logician. He made major contributions to logic, but logic for him encompassed much of that which is now called epistemology and philosophy of science. He saw logic as the formal branch of semiotics, of which he is a founder. As early as 1886 he saw that logical operations could be carried out by electrical switching circuits; the same idea was used decades later to produce digital computers."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/#con

"Currently, considerable interest is being taken in Peirce's ideas by researchers wholly outside the arena of academic philosophy. The interest comes from industry, business, technology, intelligence organizations, and the military; and it has resulted in the existence of a substantial number of agencies, institutes, businesses, and laboratories in which ongoing research into and development of Peircean concepts are being vigorously undertaken."

Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science (2013)

#16

Post by jkarni »

chrisdevereux wrote: post #14
tjradcliffe wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an undergraduate degree in engineering, a PhD in physics and some post-graduate education in philosophy, and have worked closely with philosophers on real problems in epistemology and metaphysics, mostly around identity theory. On the basis of that experience, I would recommend focusing on a traditional CS or EECS degree, and take philosophy on the side. By taking a traditional degree you will provide yourself…

I won't bother dazzling everyone with a list of qualifications, but you're really misrepresenting Positivism here. Positivism is really the idea that being empirically testable is a necessary condition for being both non-trivial and meaningful. Not (except maybe when being polemical, as Ayer could sometimes) that metaphysics is necessarily unverifiable. Most of the problems we class as "metaphysics" probably aren't e…

Agreed. I find it hilarious that a position (logical positivism, I mean) that is often criticized for failing it's own test of meaningfulness - because it lacks verification conditions - can also be criticized for being empirically false...

Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science (2013)

#17

Post by kriro »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #8
yzzxy wrote: post #2

I'm considering several undergrad degree programs in computer science through university philosophy departments. Has anyone had a similar experience who could share their feedback? I've really enjoyed reading the basic philosophy I've covered so far and things like decision and game theory also fascinate me. I think it could also be a good track to AI research, though probably not the modern machine learning style? A…

If you're interested in philosophy, I'd recommend a math or CS degree with an emphasis on PL theory/logic. If you're into game theory, consider CS and Statistics.

An economics minor could also work if you're interested in game theory but you have to check the curriculum carefully. Usually you can mix mostly statistics (or econometrics) and game theory to get the econ credits.

I'd probably pick CS, math or psychology as a good combination with philosophy. Theoretical physics is probably interesting as well but I don't know much about it. Quantum physics seems almost impossible without dipping into philosophy from my pop-QP point of view.

I'm mostly interested in science theory/epistemology/ontology though and know fairly little about other branches of philosophy. No formal education but I've talked to philosophers on campus and it's usually very interesting. I'd agree that a major benefit seems to be a sharpened thought process in general.

Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science (2013)

#18

Post by arethuza »

walterbell wrote: post #15
__Joker wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies, if I am ignorant here. But what is this quote and how it is pertinent to the OP ?

He was a philosopher, whose work in the late 1800s was a precursor to computer science. Practical applications have been found in modern research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce "Peirce considered himself, first and foremost, a logician. He made major contributions to logic, but logic for him encompassed much of that which is now called epistemology and philosophy of science. He saw logic as the…

I definitely think Peirce should be more famous - particularly for identifying abductive reasoning:

"Deduction proves that something must be; Induction shows that something actually is operative; Abduction merely suggests that something may be."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science (2013)

#19

Post by brudgers »

yzzxy wrote: post #2

I'm considering several undergrad degree programs in computer science through university philosophy departments. Has anyone had a similar experience who could share their feedback? I've really enjoyed reading the basic philosophy I've covered so far and things like decision and game theory also fascinate me. I think it could also be a good track to AI research, though probably not the modern machine learning style? A…

If you enjoy philosophy, study philosophy. If combining those studies with computing is both practical and more appealing, then by all means pursue that.

Standard degrees are great for producing hot-swappable collefe hires. After that diverse experience and background is what makes a career.

Re: The Philosophy of Computer Science (2013)

#20

Post by kijin »

yzzxy wrote: post #2

I'm considering several undergrad degree programs in computer science through university philosophy departments. Has anyone had a similar experience who could share their feedback? I've really enjoyed reading the basic philosophy I've covered so far and things like decision and game theory also fascinate me. I think it could also be a good track to AI research, though probably not the modern machine learning style? A…

Philosophy PhD here. Get a degree in a STEM field and do philosophy on the side, possibly as a minor. Philosophy is badly in need of people who possess serious expertise in other fields and who can bring their expertise to bear on philosophical issues. We've had enough of people who only ever studied philosophy.

On the other hand, if your university has some sort of interdisciplinary program that combines philosophy with computer science, cognitive science, or some other STEM field, then go for it. Just make sure that it's a stable, well-funded, populous program (not something that only exists for the sake of placating a particular professor), and that your degree looks sciencey enough, e.g. it says B.Sc. instead of B.A.

Of course, YMMV depending on your university and the availability (or lack thereof) of certain faculty members during your stay.

Post reply on HN