The scope of computer scientists

  • Thread starter Thread starter CyberShot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computer Scope
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether computer scientists, particularly those with a PhD and engaged in research, should be classified as traditional scientists. The argument suggests that computer science lacks a rigorous scientific method akin to that used in natural sciences, which involves forming hypotheses, gathering evidence, and establishing laws based on findings. Instead, computer science is viewed as more aligned with mathematics, focusing on manipulating data represented in binary form rather than directly studying physical phenomena. Some participants propose alternative titles like "data-ologist" or "applied ontologist" to better reflect the nature of computer science. Ultimately, the consensus leans toward the notion that while computer science employs rigorous methods, it does not conform to the traditional scientific method, positioning computer scientists more as mathematicians than as scientists in the conventional sense.
CyberShot
Messages
133
Reaction score
2
Would you consider a computer scientist (someone with a PhD & doing research) as a traditional scientist? I mean, there's no rigorous method that defines computer science as a "science" in the proper sense that is guided by the scientific method of making hypotheses, gathering evidence, weighing evidence and adjusting hypotheses, and then finally establishing new natural laws or revising old ones based on evidence.

Does it depend on the specific field? Maybe, a computer architect, dealing with circuits, could be considered an "electrical" scientist. Science usually corresponds with something physical or tries to describe nature. But, computer science attempts to manipulate, or even outwit, nature through the manipulation and transformation of data, encoded as 0s and/or 1s. Thus, computer scientists achieve their goal by mapping real world data through binary representation, essentially shifting around the 0 and 1 bits according to patterns or rules, and then mapping those new bits to new data to recognize patterns or understand trends of information. In this sense, I would say that computer science is more like mathematics, and even precedes natural science in fundamentality.

I would probably say that computer scientists are not "real" scientists. The term "data-ologist," or "applied ontologist" seems more appropriate. Your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Technology news on Phys.org
CyberShot said:
Would you consider a computer scientist (someone with a PhD & doing research) as a traditional scientist? I mean, there's no rigorous method that defines computer science as a "science" in the proper sense that is guided by the scientific method of making hypotheses, gathering evidence, weighing evidence and adjusting hypotheses, and then finally establishing new natural laws or revising old ones based on evidence.

This relates to your overall theme that computer scientists are more mathematicians that scientists. It's not that the method isn't rigorous, it just doesn't follow the scientific method. It's more like the method used by mathematicians, where a conjecture is made and a proof is attempted to show it is a theorem.
 
Dear Peeps I have posted a few questions about programing on this sectio of the PF forum. I want to ask you veterans how you folks learn program in assembly and about computer architecture for the x86 family. In addition to finish learning C, I am also reading the book From bits to Gates to C and Beyond. In the book, it uses the mini LC3 assembly language. I also have books on assembly programming and computer architecture. The few famous ones i have are Computer Organization and...
I have a quick questions. I am going through a book on C programming on my own. Afterwards, I plan to go through something call data structures and algorithms on my own also in C. I also need to learn C++, Matlab and for personal interest Haskell. For the two topic of data structures and algorithms, I understand there are standard ones across all programming languages. After learning it through C, what would be the biggest issue when trying to implement the same data...
Back
Top