The scope of computer scientists

  • Thread starter Thread starter CyberShot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computer Scope
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the classification of computer scientists as traditional scientists. Participants argue that while computer scientists engage in rigorous research, their methods do not align with the scientific method typically associated with natural sciences. Instead, they suggest that computer science resembles mathematics more closely, focusing on data manipulation and pattern recognition rather than empirical evidence gathering. The term "data-ologist" or "applied ontologist" is proposed as a more fitting designation for computer scientists.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the scientific method and its application in traditional sciences.
  • Familiarity with computer science concepts, particularly data manipulation and binary representation.
  • Knowledge of mathematical principles and their relevance to computer science.
  • Awareness of the distinctions between various scientific disciplines, including natural sciences and applied sciences.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the differences between the scientific method and mathematical proof techniques.
  • Explore the role of data representation in computer science, focusing on binary encoding.
  • Investigate the concept of "applied ontology" and its implications in data science.
  • Examine the relationship between computer science and traditional scientific disciplines.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for computer scientists, researchers in data science, and academics interested in the philosophical implications of scientific classification. It also serves mathematicians and educators seeking to understand the intersection of mathematics and computer science.

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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
29
Views
6K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
8K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
640
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
2K