Computer science is a liberal arts degree

Post by sudosysgen » Sat, May 21, 2022, 9:03 PM UTC

ukj wrote: post #139

sudosysgen wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point. Mathematics isn't a natural science, and that's what I was trying to point out. There is a term for doing science on human constructs - it's called social science. Is your thesis that mathematics is a social science? > Humans are part of nature. Human constructs are part of nature. Humans physically are part of nature, sure. Human constructs are not considered to be as far as classif…

I am not sure why you are using the phrase "natural science", is there any other kind? Lets revisit with the wikipedia definition: Science (from Latin scientia 'knowledge') is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. That seems pretty general and all-inclusive to me. Any knowledge about humans; or societies; or the stuff human…

Post by ukj » Sat, May 21, 2022, 9:13 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #141

ukj wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure why you are using the phrase "natural science", is there any other kind? Lets revisit with the wikipedia definition: Science (from Latin scientia 'knowledge') is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. That seems pretty general and all-inclusive to me. Any knowledge about humans; or societies; or the stuff human…

I am not doing so. I am saying that if you want to classify mathematics as a science on the basis of the existence of theorem validation software on which someone may experiment, then it is a science on human constructs, ie, a social science, and not a natural science. The argument here for math to be a science is very tortured and contrived, but if it has any even technical validity then it makes the argument for ma…

Post by anthk » Sat, May 21, 2022, 9:46 PM UTC

uneekname wrote: post #81

creakingstairs wrote: post #8

I think we should leave comp sci as what it is. > The bulk of software work today is about integrating computation into human driven tasks, predicting and anticipating how people think, what they need, how they react to new communication and work methods Sure. But that is not what comp sci is about. If one wants better programmers then those aspect should be put in a different, more job focused, degrees like Software…

I think your argument is sound, but I disagree. I think that CS degrees should absolutely involve more "humanities." CS, or any other "STEM" field, cannot be separated from human history, philosophy, ethics. As pure as it might seem, even maths and computers exist within a complex humanities context.

Post by deltaonefour » Sat, May 21, 2022, 11:13 PM UTC

barrysteve wrote: post #144

deltaonefour wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often the category is a language phenomenon. The language or the word spawns a philosophical debate but nobody realizes that it's just a poorly defined arbitrary word/category and the whole debate is actually centered around a language quirk. For example what's the difference between a boat and a raft? At what point is a water vehicle a boat and at what point is it a raft? Any debate on this is simply a linguistic de…

If you were stuck on a desert island, would you prefer a boat or a raft to rescue you? I'd pick boat everytime. Words do have meaning and in a sense it's all we have. Approaching CS as a series of abstract mathematical problems to solve can make you a very good programmer. Finding the right place in society to sell your .exe's is sometimes better solved by a programmer with a liberal arts education.

Post by scollet » Sat, May 21, 2022, 11:53 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #80

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many programmers are making those decisions on their own and how many are doing what their PM told them do to, at the command of ever higher ups? It's a weird trend to blame all tech outcomes on programmers who often have the least amount of control over what the systems the build are intended to do.

> how many are doing what their PM told them do to, at the command of ever higher ups? There will always be sociopaths. The problem is the skilled people who can rationalize enabling them.