Favourite type of science?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not picking apart sentences. But to the two main points, empirical observation and testing is central to the scientific method, and without it, there is no science. I also never said the two were equivalent. One is based upon the other. Data and information are super sets of all physical things. It is an abstraction, but physical objects are data. You're clearly operating under the assumption that information and data are only constructs that are generated by thought about systems rather than existent systems themselves (Descartes) and do not take physical form. This is a fundamental disagreement we have that will prevent agreement on the matter as a whole.


On this part in particular, this is of little meaning. There is nothing here that disputes computer science being science without the propositional logic I cited. Without that logic, what you've said means little because there's not much reasoning as to why.

Last edited by Biokinetica on 13 Sep 2011, 10:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

You completely missed the point, but got the right summary...

No, it's not about manipulation of electrons or electrical circuits, they're just the tools. I can use these tools to manipulate anything, not just electrons. That's an extremely narrow view of the subject. The idea is the manipulation and observation of the components of the universe, no matter what they are. As for big O notation, no scientist ever said it directly related to electrons; another product of misunderstanding the point. It's just a measure and categorization method not unlike the mole in chemistry.

Mathematicians do the same thing sometimes, but that does not change the underlying discipline. Ultimately, neither computer science nor mathematics deal with the natural world, but rather with abstractions.


And there is a problem with this reasoning how? What you have listed is a valid inference from true premises. The conclusion is necessarily true.


OK? This still doesn't change anything.


This sentence speaks volumes.

Don't ignore half my post and then dismiss my argument. That's just plain bad form.

I've already gone through why this is false.


Premises and conclusions defined as truth by you without a hard reasoning to back it. You've used nothing but anecdotal evidence thus far, which vouches for little.


Yes it does, because this is the heart of the scientific method. You will now have to find some other reasoning to dispute it on.


This one does the same in concerns with cutting posts up, taking them out of context and saying the argument doesn't make sense. This is why I don't like people doing line-by-line responses. If you guys are going to ignore what's presented in favor of what you want to respond to, we're done with the matter. Otherwise, I'd be willing to go further.

well, I would have thought that abstractions is specifically for theoretical computer science rather than the general computer science, I mean, does the general 'science' deal with abstractions exclusively?

I think the confusion or issue is the name, as why is it called "science" and why computer scientists are called "scientists", some people seem to understand the word "science" it must mean natural science. I pressume it's the field of study why is it called "science", as we get natural science, social science, political science, and then computer science, if I am somewhat correct. :p


well, let's change it like this:
If math != natural science and computer science = math, then computer science != natural science.

Last edited by blunnet on 13 Sep 2011, 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I didn't feel like responding to all of the things you said. Not all of the things you said were interesting enough that I was cared to respond.


No you haven't. It doesn't matter that computer programs are stored on physical bits of silicon. The important part of computing is the study of algorithms, which very much falls under the umbrella of mathematics.


You're just inserting buzzwords with no regard for whether they mean anything. What "anecdotal evidence" are you referring to? Mathematics is not a science; this is plain enough. It does not depend on empiricism but rather on formal logic and deductive reasoning from a priori axioms. So the first premise is true. The second premise doesn't seem at all controversial either. Computer science is algorithms, algorithms are math, therefore computer science is math. The simple inference then that computer science is not science follows as a necessary truth once the truth of the two premises is established.


I don't "have" to do anything, especially when your reasoning is such nonsense. Testing algorithms in a concrete setting is just an easier way of figuring out if they would do what you want them to than going through the formal mathematics one more time, and it is easier to catch mistakes that way. This goes back to Ancalgon's claim that computer science is part engineering. In this case, they are trying to design some practical tool or other and are testing to see if it performs up to expectations.


Whine all you want about "context." You never gave any reason why propositional logic allegedly fails here. Given that propositional logic guarantees a true conclusion when done correctly, that seems like a bit of a problem for your argument.

Out of the list, my favorite science would be physics, obviously because that's my field.

Psychology... followed by stats... also enjoyed physics and biology my senior year of high school

so just because there are two ways to attain the same effect it is no longer empirical?

hmm i think it is quite normal for the same effect to be attained in multiple ways, both friction and infrared radioation will heat a subject.

i can udnerstand why math in itself is not a science, it evolves trhough science and is required for all fields, it is a tool and little more.
when it comes to fields that are as diverse as computer science i think it is hard to say it isnt science in some form

as i stated before there is so huge an overlap between most scientific fields that to call one of them "non-science" would eventually detract from others one would be sure is science.
granted there are some fields that are 99% anecdotal like psychology.

Prescience and omniscience

Then I won't care to respond to anything I don't find "interesting". Because this is in stark contrast to what's acceptable among adults, this will be the last one to you, as well.


Because you're too obsessed with your one crutch that math is not science, you refuse to look at computer science in regards to itself. The words I'm using aren't buzzwords, they just don't apparently mean anything to you. The thing that you are missing is that math is the description of algorithms. Not the algorithms themselves. Algorithms already exist, math does nothing but put them on paper. Nature uses an algorithm to fold proteins to generate life. It uses them to divide cells to a certain number a times before they die. This is understood and accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, putting your view in the minority.


And the problem you have is that you're not doing it correctly. You refuse to believe you are, but that's ok; reality will show you that logical validity != logical soundness. You'll learn the truth at some point in life.

Of course you can decide not to respond to things that don't interest you. Your surprise surprises me.


What does this mean?


No. Algorithms are mathematical in the same way that integers are mathematical.


That certain algorithms may be useful in describing biological phenomena doesn't make algorithms become physical any more than that a quadratic equation can describe the path of a bullet makes quadratic equations become physical.


Big O notation is not a way of categorizing or measuring electrons. Or anything else physical.

It is a mathematical concept describing the relationship between two functions. It is very unlike the mole in chemistry.

I found this quote from Alan Turing in Knuth volume 1:

Certainly there is some empiricism in computer science, but I would think that the definition of science would require that it be the study of the natural world. If you're using a definition that only requires the presence of empericism somewhere, then it would definitely count.

define natural world

to my mind everything is natural, we are a product of nature so what we do is a natural, we only asign it special meaning because we did it, as a hive mind termites do quite the same with their mounds, (in this case termites are not aware they do but they maintain and nurture a hie in every way possible, through evolution there could eve have been some "research" into the design, multi generational research but still)

Your reference to "anecdotal evidence" was garbage. You were inserting a buzzword without bothering about whether it was meaningful in the context it was being used. I know perfectly well what the words you're using mean, but only certain combinations of those words can produce a meaningful statement.


You have it entirely backwards. Nature does not "use algorithms." Humans use algorithms to model the workings of nature. Algorithms themselves are abstract mathematical entities with no physical existence.

Your two examples in particular seem rather odd... nature certainly does not use an algorithm to fold proteins. Proteins fold as the laws of physics dictate. And an algorithm is used to divide cells a certain number of time before they die? Really? You think the length of a telomere is counted down by a for loop or something?


Feel free to point out any error in that reasoning.


What a joke. I am well aware of the difference. Once again you just seem to be inserting fancy words without caring about whether your comments make any sort of coherent sense. You have not demonstrated any of the premises to be false, and thus not demonstrated the argument to be unsound.

The physical world. Abstractions, such as mathmatics, would be excluded.

If you think abstractions should be included in the physical world, then where the number 1 is located?