All Science is Computer Science [Y/N]?

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.

Comments

Computer "Science" is a misnomer

[Phaid]

Most people who get CS degrees are the farthest thing from being actual computer "scientists". Real computer science is basically mathematics - whether it is finite automata or database normalization, it boils down to math.

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.

ALL YOUR SCIENCE ARE BELONG TO FOO!

[dillon_rinker]

AP, UPI (NY)

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.

There's a big difference

[Noer]

Most (if not all) sciences now use computers as tools, but that's no different from using calculators as tools, or calculus as a tool, or statistical analysis as a tool. That does not mean that all sciences are mathematics or engineering. Physicists now need to be able to write code and use computers in fairly sophisticated ways, but they do NOT need to be computer scientists. Computer scientists do NOT just write code; they're generally developing more theoretical stuff, such as the theory of computation, or artificial intelligence, or advanced operating system design. It would be like calling someone who uses physics on a daily basis (gee, pretty much everyone, though I had in mind someone like a radiologist) a physicist.

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.

Larry Ellison was much more interesting...

[Kasreyn]

Last month a leader in the software industry, Larry Ellison, the chief executive of Oracle, predicted that the focus of the intellectual excitement will shift again.

"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