All Science is Computer Science [Y/N]? 156
angainor sent in this interesting piece: "There is an article in NY Times which claims that in fact all science is computer science. He does some small talk about the fields of modern science where computers have been successfully used. But that's it. Does he really know what he is talking about? Read this piece, but don't be proud just because you are too a computer "scientist"." The writer has a good point about new advances in many fields being due to large amounts of computing power being applied.
Re:Larry Ellison was much more interesting... (Score:1)
He went into sales, and decided that he'd make the most money shilling computers.
Re:Computer "Science" is a misnomer (Score:2)
Computer "Science" is a misnomer (Score:5)
On the other hand, computer programming, which is really what the vast majority of CS people do, is the farthest thing from science. If it were done with discipline and planning, you might be able to call it engineering, but really when you look at the way software is actually created, it can't even be called that.
So let's not flatter ourselves. The fact that you use computers as a tool in true scientific research, or you program computers to do specific tasks, in no way makes you a computer scientist.
Re:Um, wrong. (Score:1)
Thus everyone is doing philosophy. And indeed, the degree they get for their first bout of postgrad research is a Doctor of Philosophy.
Thus the whole world's turning into a bunch of philosophers.
Even then, we'd go back to the usual subject classifications just to tell people who 'did philosophy' in different areas apart from one another.
Basically, the dependence on computers underlies their importance, and consequently that of mathematics, logic and all the other branches of 'classical science' that computer science/computing-in-general draws its inspiration from.
John
Frequent confusion of terms. (Score:1)
There are (at least) three distinct areas where you need a term using words like computer and science. They are:
- Computing Science (or Computer Science) -- typical CS stuff; algorithms research, working on good models of computation.
Kind of a cross between pure mathematics and
Operations Research; lots of good stuff here,
but not really science in the hypothesis/test/conclusions sense.
- Scientific Computing The part of CS particularly focused on scientific applications. Numerical methods, especially for PDE solving or
simulation; efficient parallel (or serial) algorithms for typical science applications; maybe even including things like parallel IO .
- Computational Science Like theoretical science or experiemental science or observational science, this is science-of-choice
done using a particular tool; here, computer simulations or calculations. The first two were focused on computation, possibly with science as
an application; this one is focused on science,
with computing as a tool.
The distinctions are important, because otherwise its hard to talk intelligently about science and computing, as we see in the NYT article. If the article read ``All Science is Computational Science'', it'd be an overstatement but at least make some sense. As it is, the article is clearly nonsense.+1 didn't read article (Score:1)
In fact, what the article says is that all sciences are becoming computer-dependent -- not "computer science" the field, but "computer-science" (as in, science done with computers), thus leading companies and researchers in other sciences to invest in computer science (the field).
Re:headline trolling (Score:1)
That said, the article _does_ imply that because of this need, science-based companies like Celera are beginning to invest in the actual field of computer science.
Re:headline trolling (Score:1)
Please apply those ideas to gravity. :-)
Fun aside, unless someone comes up with the GUT, putting together the particle/field ideas from the quantumn theories of electro-weak and strong interaction with the geometric ideas from general relativity, I have serious doubts that quantumn mechanics (which one? :-) covers all of science.
As for math on the other hand, it is true that nearly all science involves math, but if you just go by the math equations, you can sometimes get non-physical solutions.
Of course. Mathematics provides a lot of consistent models (heck even a lot of consistent mathematics depending on how you choose the axioms), but picking that model that modells reality is physics.
On a side note it is rather interesting how many professors of theoretic computer science seem not to care much about quantumn computing.
The basic models from the theory of computation on which various famous theorems rely (including the halting problem) all stem on a model that models a machine governed by the laws of classical mechanics, which is only a approximation of course, as nature is mostly quantumn mechnical. Thus computation models that model a quantumn mechanical machine are supposed to show different computational behaviour.
When talking about such systems, the usual computer scientist gives you a look like you were talking about warp drives.
Not True (Score:1)
Ridiculous (Score:1)
Computer science is the study of computing--the theory and practice that makes the machines work.
Physics (for example) uses computers as a tool to study the laws of the universe.
The former is interested in computers themselves. The latter is interested in computers as a tool to study the primary discipline.
Re:Not CS. Math. (Score:2)
All science, sooner or later, is *false*. That's because theorems can be proven, but hypotheses can only be disproven
This is the silliest thing I've heard! (Score:3)
While I think that working in a computer science department gave me an interesting perspective on problem solving, the fact is that computer science really doesn't deal with making actual programs that do things, but with more esoteric things like proving problems to be NP-hard. The sorts of applied knowledge that is useful to other fields isn't really central to the aims of computer science as such. This isn't a slam on computer science -- you can make a similar claim between the basic science of microbiology and the applied knowledge useful for treating infections.
All Pure Science Eventually Reduces to Mathematics (Score:1)
Sooner or later, all Sciences reduce to the study of Mathematics.
So, every scientific field builds on the advances of all other scientific fields.
So... what's the point???
--
Not human science. (Score:2)
All Computer Science is Math (Score:1)
Its been said that any discipline that has the word 'science' added to it isn't 'real' science. That phrase, of course, was no doubt coined by a physicist. But to gain a perspective on the nature of a given theoretical discipline, look at what the discipline in question has produced.
The study of physics has given rise to modern power systems, telecommunications, and nuclear power, to name just a few. Those engaged in study of biology have discovered selective breeding, penecilin, and the nature of how disease is spread and treated. Chemistry has given rise to most of the materials that make most of what we use in the course of our daily pursuits, including computers.
From the study of algorithms and data structures has come . . . Microsoft windows and office. An industry where 'standards' are all but non-existent and most of the products of of a quality so bad that they can no longer be sold. Software makers must get people addicted to their software and then charge for rent and repair. The computer industry is advancing not because software (algorithms and data structures) is improving, but because the hardware is improving. If computer hardware didn't improve, computer software wouldn't improve. Computer science has very little if anything at all to do with computer hardware.
And if you use the argument that computers are being used to design computers, remember that the Pentium IV isn't much faster than a pentium III - in fact for some tasks, its slower.
Physics and chemistry is what builds computers. I have a friend who owns a company that sells a
Re:+1 didn't read article (Score:1)
Re:Leave it to the media (Score:2)
bad wording (Score:2)
no way (Score:1)
Re:Larry Ellison was much more interesting... (Score:2)
Besides, last I checked Larry Ellison didn't know much about computer science or genetic engineering.
The real problem with computers is now that they are so dang popular the real advances don't get the press that a new release of Linux 2.4 or a new Athlon does. People aren't interested in trying out new language paradigms because, gall darnit, if C was good enough for K&R it's good enough for them. People aren't interested in trying out new kinds of software because they're comfortable with the old kind.
It's kinda like saying there hasn't been any development in automotive technology when what you really mean is that the cool developments take decades to actually be implemented (if they ever make it) so you never hear about.
Pie in the sky fields like genetic engineering can fill their press releases with things like "some day we may be able to use this technology to cure congenital birth defects". More established industries like computers that already have shipping products have to be slightly more...pragmatic.
Has genetic engineering really made big advances in the past few years? Or is that just the spin that biotech companies have put on it? Or is it our own biases based on our ingrained awe for biology and contempt for mere machines? Even if it has made great leaps in the past, is genetic engineering likely to do so in the next few years as well? How can you even begin to quantify what counts as a "big advance" except through hind sight? I think it was Yogi Berra who said, "It's hard to predict things. Especially the future."
Computer sciense (Score:1)
Oh, I see, he means computer sciense, not computing sciense!
headline trolling (Score:2)
Computers have become an incredible and indispensable tool in the advancement of all the sciences, but that doesn't make "all science computer science". One could just as easily say that "all science is quantum physics" or "all science is math" and it would have the same degree of truth, i.e. some but not enough to be considered a generally true statement.
Emergent properties of complex systems (Score:2)
That may be true (although I'd like to see you prove it), but would it be meaningful or useful? As another reply has pointed out, you're expressing a standard reductionist position, but it's one that isn't even held by most good physicists. For example, here's a quote from quantum physics professor Howard Georgi of Harvard (taken from here [magna.com.au]):
Another good intro to these kinds of issues is Murray Gell-Mann's book, "The Quark and the Jaguar". Gell-Mann's credentials as a quantum physicist are beyond reproach, but he is by no means a reductionist, and has a keen appreciation for the unique properties of complex systems - the jaguar in the title of his book is a metaphor for this.
Since many other physicists and philosophers more qualified than I have written on this topic, I'll restrict my reponse to a freewheeling, extended analogy: quantum physics can be compared to a CPU's instruction set, or "machine code". On top of that, we layer assemblers, and then compilers and interpreters for various languages. Using compilers and interpreters, we build various systems and applications. Since ultimately, all of these things are done using machine code, is it meaningful to say that all applications are "just machine code"? There's a sense in which this is true, but let's examine it further.
With the CPU analogy, we can do something we can't do in our single physical universe: we can take an application and compile it on a different type of CPU - a CPU with a different instruction set. Compiled for this CPU, the application still behaves identically. So by claiming that an application is machine code, we're clearly missing an important point, since the same application functionality can be achieved with completely different machine code. [Of course, both CPUs follow a more fundamental set of information theory laws, but that's not important to the argument.] The point is that complex systems exhibit "emergent properties", characteristics which arise from interactions between components of the system in question, and which can't be meaningfully analyzed, or even easily inferred, from the perspective of more basic, underlying systems.
To cut this short (well, shorter than it would be otherwise), I'm going to make a few leaps. Imagine for a moment that we could build a toy universe in the laboratory, with different physical laws than our own. Even though its physical laws are different, it's not impossible - in fact it's quite likely - that complex systems in that universe could share some of the properties of complex systems in our universe. To take an extreme example (as I said, I'm leaping), imagine an intelligence in this other universe, and assume we could communicate with it somehow. We would probably find that we share some basic characteristics with this alien intelligence. For example, it is a common characteristic of living systems that they have a strong bias toward survival, simply because those that don't, die out. This survival instinct is something that's not a direct or obvious consequence of quantum mechanics - it's actually rooted in simple logic (perhaps all science is logic?!)
Even if you could somehow come up with a QM model for the survival instinct, it would miss the point, since it's quite conceivable that a survival instinct could arise in a universe not based on QM - it really has nothing to do with QM. The survival instinct is just one example of an emergent property of complex systems - in this case a living system - that has little or nothing to do with the physical construction of the system.
Re:headline trolling (Score:2)
Good catch!
When talking about [quantum computing] systems, the usual computer scientist gives you a look like you were talking about warp drives.
I think the warp drive analogy is fairly accurate. Building quantum computers is a task somewhat outside the realm of computer science, at least as it's usually defined. And, since no useful quantum computer has yet been built, we don't know for sure what physical limits we're going to run into with them. A lot of the discussion about quantum computing to date has been about unrestricted theoretical possibilities. Sure, we could develop a mathematical computing theory based on the imagined properties of a perfect quantum computer - but what are the chances that a real-world quantum computer will be as unconstrained as we would like it to be? I suggest we revisit this discussion in 25 years, when I predict that quantum computers will be "about five years" from being viable...
ALL YOUR SCIENCE ARE BELONG TO FOO! (Score:5)
In a stunning announcement today, the American Automobile Association stated "All science is actually automotive engineering." A recent study has shown that over 98% of scientific developments required the use of a car. "Without these amazing machines, I'd have to walk 45 miles to work, up hill both ways!" one scientist was quoted as saying.
In a related event, the Carpenters Union announced "All science is actually construction." Nearly 100% of lab experiments take place in buildings that were built by builders. Without us, there'd be no labs, no checking of theories - in short, no scientific advancement." Theoretical mathematicians scoffed at the announcement, but other scientists confirmed that most labs are not in caves or other natural structures.
Meanwhile, representatives of the National Restaurant Association are preparing press releases to explain that all science is actually eating. 100% of scientists contacted by this reporter confirmed that they would be unable to do science if it weren't for food.
Re:A common misunderstanding (Score:1)
;)
---
I came here for a good argument!
No you didn't! No, you came here for an argument.
Is debuggin science? (Score:2)
Bah, humbug ... (Score:2)
- statistical = accounting = infosys
- discrete = binary/automata = computer science
- continuous = scientific fields = computational science
Basically computers have matured to the stage where nowadays CSEE are nothing more than software engineering techniques, but the level varies according to the stage of hardware->firmware->software->wetware. (as Intel? CEO once said, hardware is nothing but frozen software). Computers are useful because they act as mental accelerators allowing you to do stuff overnight or in between coffee breaks or QUAKE sessions. But by itself, the theory is rooted in various branches of maths split into the business of computing (variations of the accounting equation), art of computing (Knuth/algorithms/etc) and the science of computing (complex systems/quantum effects/etc). For some strange reason fun and money seem to have an inverse relationship along this continuum.
For the average layperson who barely recognises how to access the internet (gee-whiz, moving text) the distinctions are superfluous but it doesn't help when the media confuses mathematics with their applications.
LL
Re:headline trolling (Score:2)
As for math on the other hand, it is true that nearly all science involves math, but if you just go by the math equations, you can sometimes get non-physical solutions.
Anyway IAAP (I am a physicist)
Re:Not True. (Score:1)
---------
A soon-to-be Biologist
or math (Score:1)
Re:Larry Ellison was much more interesting... (Score:1)
I thought so too, then I saw a paper by Calude, Dinneen, and Svozil.
Counterfactual Effect, the Halting Problem, and the Busy Beaver Function (1999) [nec.com]You're ridiculing an argument that wasn't made (Score:1)
Worth mentioning that the NYT article was drastically better written and better researched than any link to somebody else's article that I've ever found on Slashdot.
Don't bash NYT just because people have no attention span.
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
Still hasn't read article. (Score:1)
Try reading it.
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
assert(uses_computers != is_computer_science) (Score:2)
"All scientists are programmers" would have been a truer headline, as would "All programmers are not computer scientists".
Re:Larry Ellison was much more interesting... (Score:3)
This rings true to me. Much of Comp Sci (my chosen profession, though I suck at it) seems to have a lack of discovery and / or innovation these days, with the exception of nanocomputing. Much of the rest of it is innovation, not invention / discovery. How many Turings do we have in Comp Sci now?
Computing / computer science is a skill rather than an industry. While I'm a programmer, and have worked for a computer company (Acorn), I've also worked for a medical company and a couple of communications companies. I'm sure I could get a programming job at a medical company doing genetic research if I set my mind to it.
Secondly, how many people working in genetics are making fundamental discoveries, and how many are just grunts doing their job? For that matter, how many people's jobs in *any* field allow them to do blue skies research of the type that may lead to fundamental discovery?
I've long ago realized I had to separate my intellectual interests from my job. While I've been lucky to have extremely interesting work assignments, it's at home that I become the "mad scientist".
Re:Larry Ellison was much more interesting... (Score:2)
True assersion, if poor article to back it up (Score:2)
For example, high energy physics is the process of deducing, without knowing the underlying properties of the Universe, what behavior we will see when we "crank up the heat" of the universe. If we knew the underlying properties, however, math could tell us the rest. This math, it seems, is more complex than the pre-Dirac world had thought. It does, in fact, seem to involve some rudimetary logic. Hence, the study of the universe is the study of an information system with logic, math and vast "memory", which is not unlike Turing's paper tape.
Computer science is math, and math is the Universe. As computer science expands and more generically encompases all of mathematics, the lines get grayer. If it is fair to say that all science is math (and I think it is), it is getting increasingly more accurate to say that all science is computer science.
Re:True assersion, if poor article to back it up (Score:2)
Did you think that I was trying to bad-mouth math at any point in my post?
Computer science is a tool useful for all sciences (Score:1)
All CS is pr0n. (Score:1)
Ironicly its too true.
"The entire body of computer science can be viewed as nothing more than the development of efficient methods for the storage, transportation, encoding, and rendering of pornography."
Oh, this old joke again (Score:2)
A computer is a tool. Its use, like its construction, is a technique. In the early days of computing it made sense to pull together multidisciplinary teams from mathematics, physics, philosophy and engineering together to make the things work in the first place. That's been done.
There are still interesting things to be done in Physics and Engineering which may, in the fullness of time, lead to better hardware, and there are still interesting things being done in Mathematics, Linguistics and Philosophy which will, in the fullness of time, lead to better software.
But there is fundamentally no such thing as Computer Science.
Re:Computers are only a tool (Score:3)
-- Multics
Hmm... No (Score:2)
I didn't think so.
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
Everything is math (Score:2)
And in turn, we just found that math is basically "full of holes" [slashdot.org].
Re:bad wording (Score:2)
The rest of the article is good, though, in pointing out how compute-intensive much modern science is. Still, it's not CS; computers are just a powerful tool.
Re:Computer "Science" is a misnomer (Score:2)
It's a subtle distinction, but being a "real" computer scientist myself, I'm sensitive about it.
The new computer revolution (Score:1)
Not just in science, but marketing, economics, manufacturing, and lots of other fields, people want huge numbers crunched in order to either figure out how something works, or to optimize some sort of process. For the past seven years or so you have seen the evolution of the computer as a communications device. Now it's time to do some computing.
The kind of person who is going to succeed in this new area is not the computer-centric person that used to rule in the Internet age. Society is now calling for people who can talk to scientists and experts in the field. This person needs to understand the field well enough to get a handle on the problem, and then apply his knowledge of algorithms, and raw programming ability to the task of solving the problem.
My advice is to learn all you can about algorithms, and have a solid understanding of math. If you can talk in mathematics, and write in code, you have a bright future.
Re:The new computer revolution (Score:1)
Airlines, for example, have been on the cutting edge of this. They have very elaborate resource scheduling programs to put their pilots, other staff, and airplanes in the right place at the right time to make the most money. Also they have the (much derided) pricing systems which determine the highest price they can charge for a ticket and still fill the plane. Both of these systems have made the airline industry much more profitable. In finance, computational models have made a big splash in the past fifteen years or so, and in fact it's physicists that are doing a lot of the work.
My broader point though, is that you're going to see the PHP/Perl/ASP people occupying the same position in a few years that HTML people did a few years ago. Their skills are widespread and mostly fungible. The people in huge demand are those that can model and optimize problems with big iron. I certainly expect their to be a growing number of modeling and optimization consultancies popping up soon just as you saw the web development consultancies pop up in the 1995-1996 timeframe.
Not CS. Math. (Score:1)
If 'All Science is Computer Science' then.. (Score:2)
Since speech can be produced, manipulated, reproduced and analysed with the aid of computers, that all speech is computer speech.
Since music can be produced, manipulated, reproduced and analysed with the aid of computers, that all music is computer music.
That is just ridiculous. Computers are simply our way of patching our brains to make up for the difficulty most of us have with performing sustained, repetitive calculations. Cept we haven't managed to 'open the source' to our brains and compile in the changes yet, which is why we're fucking around with these dynamically linked modules we call computers.
Is CS even a Science?!?! (Score:1)
All people are now physicists (Score:1)
I realize that the headline and last sentence of the article weren't really the point of the article, but they still made me take what the author said with a grain of salt. Basically, he said that many fields of science are using computers these days, nothing more revolutionary than that. Perhaps the headline was just an attention grabber, or just a grossly uninformed statement.
---------------
All sciences might be math (Score:2)
Bull Shit (Score:2)
Computer science (and computer engineering) lays the foundations for other fields to effectively use computers. Where would physicists and biologists be if significant time and effort had never been invested in developing programming languages, communication protocols and designing processors?
Anyway, that NYT article is just plain silly. The Larry Ellison quote tops it off. I'll agree that much of the computing industry is boring, but computer science is an academic field and it'll be a l--o--n--g time before CS begins to get boring. Go ask good 'ol George Johnson what he thinks of Artificial Intelligence...
Jason
easy access (Score:1)
there you go
Re:Computer "Science" is a misnomer (Score:3)
:P
Re:Larry Ellison was much more interesting... (Score:2)
I disagree. Computer science is about to get much more interesting in the way you mention, when quantum computing starts getting taken seriously. The entire field of algorithms needs to be rewritten for quantum computers. The fields of cryptography, compiler design, languages, and even theory of computation need to be rewritten. NP-hard doesn't necessarily mean what it used to (it doesn't make a problem intractable with quantum computers). The whole heirarchy of decidability has to be looked at a litle differently.
There's a big difference (Score:4)
The difference is between using tools and theories (which does not make someone a scientist in that discipline, in this case computer science), and DEVELOPING those tools and theories, which is the job of scientists in various disciplines.
well then (Score:1)
"all your science belong to us"
yeah right
Re:No (Score:1)
-dwj
Re:Larry Ellison was much more interesting... (Score:1)
You note the lack of innovation in CS. I have no idea if there are some universities out there who really don't treat CS as "training for a tech job" but I've been getting that impression. CS theory seems to be languishing, with a few valiant attempts on the "is P=NP?" problem appearing now and then with predictable results. Even quantum computing hasn't really rocked the boat yet. There seems to be some work in computational linguistics but it didn't seem like such a fruitful field. I might even go so far as to say these are all true, and that's because CS is an early science. Would anyone care to correct this impression? I'm anxious to hear about counterexamples. I'm another one of those "computer science physicists."
-dwj
Re:No (Score:1)
On the other hand, some theories are hamstrung by the requirement of checking millions of data points (eg., galaxy clusters--my previous work, QCD, etc) and to make at least some progress practically demands the integration of the computer into your theoretical work. There is the risk that you've been wasting your time when the real data waltzes in, but that seems to be the danger with any theory, and the short time spent on simulations (relative to, say, waiting for the next satellite to launch) combined with improved quality (due to fresh contributions from the CS field) tend to justify the effort. If at least one of these efforts turn out to be the real thing, then it is probably worth it.
-dwj
Re:No (Score:1)
As much as I believe computers are simply tools, physics are just tools - almost everything is tool.
Look around your room - what is NOT tools? The can of Coke and the orange. Makes me wonder - does saying "[insert your noun] is just a tool" serve any practical purpose at all?
and before that, they were "Pencil Scientists" (Score:2)
Re:Computer "Science" is a misnomer (Score:1)
Absolutely agreed. The arguments that most CS or even "it" grads give is based on the concept of "applied science." This is a loose description of Engineering in most people's language. Unfortunately, I remain doubtful of this. Engineers operate in a world with rules, but not all of those rules are understood. The rules of an operating environment such as a language or even defined hardware are pretty nailed down.
Don't consider this flamebait, but there's little more "applied science" in programming one language for one or two platforms than there is in baking a cake. There's a bunch of rules and a relatively defined environment. The reason I bring up a domestic activity like cooking is that the "scientific method", or "check and test" is equally well argued in making something new of any sort. I think the phrase "scientific" needs a slightly better meaning than simply a method whereby you don't accept that donig somethign one way is necessarily the best way.
If Larry Ellison was in genetic engineering... (Score:1)
He'd be trying to convice us that'd be so much better (for his profit margins) if we gave up on being individual humans and settled on being tapeworms in the gut of his overpriced "host humans".
Leave it to the media (Score:1)
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Dijkstra
I'm getting tired of the confusion about what is and isn't Computer Science. Software Engineering is not computer science. I am a Software Engineer, am I also a Computer Scientist in that role? To a very limited extent, yes. I do use tools and methods from computer science on occasion, but rarely in any deeper a fashion than a carpenter uses physics. Yes computer science permeates every facet of what I do, but I am not doing Computer Science. Now in my own work I do take the role of Computer Scientist, many times without even touching a computer.
I've always made the distinction between the practical and the theoretical when it comes to computers and Computer Science. Sure the line may be blurry, and it's difficult (if not impossible) to be a purely practical person without having a grounding and theory, and vice versa, to be good at what you do at least.
Personally I believe that Computer Science, as theory is of higher order than the practical. However, this is not to say that the practical is bad. I pride myself on my, and give others credit for their, practical skills, but it is not Computer Science.
Re:Leave it to the media -- not true (Score:1)
n. Abbr. e., E., eng.
The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.
I'd say that pretty much sums up Software Engineering.
Instead, every science is physics. (Score:1)
She blinded me with science! (Score:1)
Computers are only a tool (Score:1)
Re:All science (including Comp Sci) is MATH! (Score:1)
Physics could be a subset of math and satisfy:
"Physics is math".
Sceinces that aren't CS (Score:1)
I buy it (Score:1)
One of my chemistry professors once claimed that everything boils down to chemistry. One of my physics professors said that in acuality, everything boils down to physics. I'll always remember those two statements, but the statement that I find rings truer than those is one by Galileo himself:
The book of nature is written in mathematical equations.
A rough quote from memory, so excuse me if it's not exactly correct. It seems that everything can be expressed in mathematical terms. In a sense, it is the mother of all sciences. Does this mean that all science is computer science? Possibly. Computers, at their core, are simply playing with numbers. Heck, there's a reason that it's called a computer. Saying that all science is computer science might also be giving too much credit to the computer itself, if you ask me. I believe a more honest statement would be "All science is mathematical in nature. Computers are mathematical devices. Therefore, assuming an appropriate computer, all science can be expressed in computational terms."
riiight (Score:1)
According to websters, science is: Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.
Physics is science, you learn about laws already ascertained and go about smashing atoms to invent new laws.
Biology is science, you learn about various species, and invent things like darwinism.
Although I haven't actually read the article, I'm going to assume these scientific strides are things like cloning, genetically modified species and stuff like that. Those are infact bio-engeneering tasks, not really science. To make a goat that makes spider silk is a lot like making a complex protien or a program. You have to take what you know, and apply it, if it doesn't work kill the goat and try again. (:
In conclusion: Science is observation. Engeneering is making/doing. Programming is engeneering.
Roy Miller
No Way! (Score:1)
/whois John Galt
Computer Science is not a Science (Score:2)
I don't think so. (Score:1)
And I think that ridicule is justified.
Because of the bad Slashdot title AND blurb, many of the posts would be a waste of time.
Slashdot is often a waste of time given the "quality" control in the articles...
I don't really care if the user posts are stupid, but the articles should be much better.
Link.
Astronomy & Computers (Score:1)
But this isn't computer science because our goal is to learn about astronomy, not to learn how computers work.
uh... no. (Score:1)
All science is Neuro-Science (Score:1)
But the running joke was that a group of scientists decided that since
all human thought was produced in the brain, then all science must perforce
become related to a Neurological-function... Hence all science is actually
Neuro-Science. And if you were actually working with/on the brian, it
would of course become Neuro-Neuro-Science. Run that Neuro-joke
ad infinitum, and you get the general Neuro-idea of how silly that Neuro-propostion
turns out to be.
Re:No (Score:2)
I do systems work for a math deptarment at a large university. One of our Professors is very involved in using computation and simulation to study various bio-medical phenomenon. Simulation is an important part of her work. By taking experimantal data, she can create simulation models that closely approximate the "real" world. Experimental data is needed to create these models, and then to validate results, but simulation is useful for running multiple senerios to see where to look for experimental research. I don't think that simulations will ever totally replace experimentation, but it will increasingly focus it, and reduce the amount of experimentation necesary to gather specific data.
limits of computation (Score:2)
The role of computation in science is magnified beyond its usefulness because futzing with computers is fun, easy, and something to do when you're out of other ideas.
One example is global climate modeling. The predictions of these computer models are cited all the time, but no one really knows if they're putting out valid results or garbage. (Since these models can't predict the weather 10 days out, one must wonder about their century-term results.) That's not real science.
Another example, I'll bet, is the computational archaeology mentioned in the article. It is easy to imagine these guys assigning variables to a lot of inexactly quantifiable phenomenon, writing equations for things that are not precisely equatable, and plugging in estimates for unknowns. Garbage in, garbage out. That's futzing, not science.
(For that matter, has the Santa Fe Institute ever produced any useful science? As far as I can tell, they're a sensational press release factory.)
Headline! All Car Drivers are Computer Scientists (Score:1)
One is often lead to believe that these scientists sit down and say
While there are exceptions, most scientists work with computer scientists. The guy conceiving of the research is unlikely to be the guy looking for that extraneous malloc() with no matching free()anymore than the Auto company designer who says "Hey let's control everything with little computers." is likely to be the same guy that choses the microcontroller and Bus architecture used.
Things are getting out of hand this way a lot. It used to be someone claiming to be very knowledgable about computers understood them in general. These days, give a guy a web browser and a way to get to the internet, and he figures he has a real good understanding of computers. Make the OS linux and poof
I guess what I'm saying is that all science is computer science like all drivers of new cars are computer users. It sounds good, until you think about how the implied meaning doesn't map remotely to the literal interpretation of the thought.
Don't need big computing for cutting edge science (Score:1)
For example in environmental sciences (integrating biology, chemistry, earth sciences and everything that may be useful), where you are actually trying to figure out how real-world systems work, the most advanced use of computing is for implementing models to check if your understanding of the matter matches reality. In order to build working models, you're pulling together knowledge from all kinds of disciplines, from observation and experiments. Computers only needed because spreadsheets come in handy.
I can't think of any problem in that realm, where our knowlege would be limited by CS-related problems.
Re:Computer "Science" is a misnomer (Score:2)
However the same problem exists in other areas. For example, is maths a science. This basically comes down to what we define as a science. Is science, discovery, or invention, or a combination of both. Do mathematicians discover or create mathematical constructs. That of course is an entire philosophy Phd, and an argument that has been raging for years.
I have to agree with you on your first point about most CS degrees. I meet so many CS people from respected universities that go on about how they get taught Jave/C++ etc (insert latest fad language here). When I was looking for a university to go to one of things I looked for was one that wasn't obsessed about the technologies they use, but about the theory, which is why I came to York. The only high level language we were taught properly was Ada95 (the language of choice in this uni because of the work done on formal methods (inc SPARK ada) and realtime stuff. Instead we get exposed to lots of languages (Occam anyone?
Interestinly, if you look at the research groups in the department, many of them contain no or very few CS graduates. many of them are full of maths people. the simple reason is that most CS people's maths is not good enough to do the really complex stuff with image recognition, neural/basian nets etc.
Anyway, I have rambled far too long (shame I can't actually go rambling, bloody foot and mouth), back to work.
Re:Computer "Science" is a misnomer (Score:2)
The difference between a computer theorist, computer programmer and "computer scientist" is arbitrary. Science, according to Webster, is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." You wouldn't say programming simulations of real-life events an "explanation of phenomena"?
Re:Computer "Science" is a misnomer (Score:2)
I'd argue against that, but I'm too tired right now to make my point.
Logical Flaw (Score:2)
The Logical flaw is supposing that all computation is computer science.
There is the science of the problem you are trying to solve, and then there is the science of the tools you use to solve the problem. The two are not the same.
Solving the Human genome is different than programming the computer to analyse the data.
but there is an overlap. In the same way that it helps to have business and accounting experience to be a systems analyst in a business. Although alot of system analysts do not have this either.
Profit vs Interest (Score:2)
That's why I chose an area of study that might never be hot [probably because it's so complicated that it makes normal biologists' heads swim (signal transduction and biochemistry)], but happens to interest me greatly. True, I'll probably never make $100,000+ a year. But at least I'll always be happy doing what I do. And after living a student's lifestyle ($8,000 per year), even $30,000 per year will seem like the high life.
---
Bio will always be hot (Score:2)
I'm willing to bet that the protein folding problem will be solved in the next 50 years. Soon after, we should start to see protein design hitting its stride. What does this all mean?
Take a bunch of E. coli bacteria. Use the genomic info you already have to insert a new gene for ProteinX that you've designed. The bacteria then make ProteinX in a huge vat, churning out billions of copies of the protein you need within a few days.
Think nanomachines are hot stuff? ProteinX is only a few nanometers in diameter, has no conventional moving parts (just changes in conformation) and can be regulated just be adding different chemicals into the mix.
OR
Think spider silk is strong? ProteinX could be modified silk fibrin, designed for more elasticity and higher tensile strength.
The sciences will always come out with incredible discoveries. Companies that use these discoveries will always have stock that's worthwhile to own. Maybe in the short-run things might dip, but it'll always make a come back.
---
Re:Computer "Science" is a misnomer (Score:2)
That's a very interesting point that you make there. It was about the first thing that popped into my head when I read the article. What use has the average "computer scientist" really in the mentioned scientific fields? In my experience pracitcally none!
I attend the University of Utrecht (in the Netherlands) for an education in so-called `Computational Science'. It's about 40% phyics, 40% math, 20% computer science in the first two years and thereafter it's about 80% math, 20% application of the computer science we were taught in first two years. We also tend to call our field "large-scale computing". So in fact it's not computer science, but computational science (that's the name we use to refer to this field of expertise, I don't know if it has any meaning abroad) that's starting to get involved in almost every field of science.
It might be different in other countries or even on other universities, but in my experience a computer scientist never spends any time learning how to solve huge numbers of coupled equations, solve differential equations (numerically or symbolically) or even approximate an integral (with more advanced methods that the trapezoidal-rule). I want to bet that if an average person with a CS degree was told to solve a system of 10000 (or another huge number) equations, they would use Gauss-elimination. That's because it's not their field of expertise. (An iterative method, derived from the Richardson iteration, such as CG or GMRES would of course be the prefered way of solving such a huge system). And because solving these kind of systems and solving differential equations numerically (which in the end are very related) is essential to almost every computer-model that I have encountered to date, I tend to disagree with the statement that it's computer science that is becoming an significant part of almost every other science. (Unless you call computational sciece a subset of computer science)
That's at least my take on it, based on my experience with both field. If people disagree I'd be happy to hear their story. Obviously I don't have all the answers either.
--
Matthijs
chalkboard science (Score:2)
Wait, they were all "pencil and paper" scientists as well. Damn, were they well-educated or what?
And Archimedes was a "stick and dirt" scientist, right?
Give me a break. The computer is a tool. A very powerful tool, in fact indispensible now, but a tool nontheless. I'm an Electrical Engineering researcher, and I spend a lot of time writing computer programs for my research in a variety of languages. Please don't call me a Computer Scientist, though, or I might just throw up. I use oscilloscopes a lot too. Does that make me an "oscilloscope scientist"?
Computer science is a well developed discipline in which very smart people devise new ways to solve problems. People in other fields, like me, use what computer scientists come up with. We are not computer scientists in our own right.
Re:headline trolling (Score:2)
Ahh yes, the reductionist theory of science. Are you familiar with the field of non-linear dynamics (chaos theory)? Maybe you could work out human biology using quantum physics but there are two serious problems. First, we don't have the physics yet to do it, even with infinitely fast computers. It may "exist" (in the platonic sense) but we don't have it. Second, you are mixing quantum theory with DeCartes' "clockwork universe". Basically, maybe we could figure everything out with math, but only if we knew initial conditions to infinite precision. Impossible.
Also, quantum theory isn't the end-all-be-all. We don't know how to use it to explain charge-parity-time (CP) violation yet, for example. There are theories, but not proven.
If you really think we can do everything with quantum mechanics, I dare you to solve some fluid-dynamics problems with an abacus.
Larry Ellison was much more interesting... (Score:5)
"If I were 21 years old," he said at a company conference in New Orleans, "I probably wouldn't go into computing. The computing industry is about to become boring. I'd go into genetic engineering."
This rings true to me. Much of Comp Sci (my chosen profession, though I suck at it) seems to have a lack of discovery and / or innovation these days, with the exception of nanocomputing. Much of the rest of it is innovation, not invention / discovery. How many Turings do we have in Comp Sci now?
Now genetics, this stuff is freaking AMAZING. My girlfriend is going into it, and I'm regularly amazed by the discoveries that are being made in the field. It may well be that computer science is no longer the frontier of human knowledge; I don't know.
The article is, of course, dead wrong. Mr. Johnson needs to have his head examined if he thinks that just because computers are used as tools in many professions, that thereby all professionals are computer scientists. He wrote an article for the NYTimes online, probably using a word processor - thus by his definition he can claim to be a computer scientist.
The thing he's dimly perceiving, but failing to adequately put into words, is how computers have become ubiquitous in the professional and academic world, and how a working knowledge of how to USE computers is fast becoming utterly essential. However, he fails to see the vast difference between being a competent end user, and being a discoverer, an inventor, a creator-of-new-things in the computer world.
So all in all, the article is only interesting in that the author accidentally brings up something else that's worth thinking about: computers and their involvement in genetics research. Now what I want to see is more development in the field of biological computing... the day when genetics and microbiology combine with comp sci and nanotechnology / nanorobotics, will be a portentuous day.
-Kasreyn
But I remember a DIFFERENT time... (Score:2)
-----------
Re:Larry Ellison was much more interesting... (Score:2)
Five years later, I would have my Ph.D., and would find that I need to do a two or three year post-doc before anyone will consider me seriously.
Once that was done, I might find that Genetic Engineering was no longer hot, and I have no job prospects. Or that so many other people had the same idea, and there are only so many Ph.D.'s needed, that there aren't a lot of job prospects.
Unlikely? It's what happened to me, but replace "Genetic Engineering" with "Toxicology". What happened (and is still happening) was a lot of mergers in the pharmaceutical industry. It dumped a lot of skilled toxicologists on the market, and it doesn't take a lot to saturate that segment of the market. I can see the same thing happening in Biotech in the future, where Amgen and others by buying up smaller firms first, then merge with peers in order to stay competative.
Besides, anyone who thinks being a gene jock is exciting has never done it.
cool (Score:2)
Not True. (Score:2)
The Aztecs had an advanced number system, and developed many of the algabraic formulas we use today. They were also amazing astronomers who made many wonderous discoveries about the heavens. All without the help of a computer.