Slashdot Mirror
Treat Computer Science As a Science: It's the Law
theodp writes: Last week, President Obama signed into law H.R. 1020, the STEM Education Act of 2015, which expands the definition of STEM to include computer science for the purposes of carrying out education activities at the NSF, DOE, NASA, NOAA, NIST, and the EPA. The Bill was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Elizabeth Etsy (D-CT). Smith's February press release linked to letters of support from tech billionaire-backed Code.org (whose leadership includes Microsoft President Brad Smith), and the Microsoft-backed STEM Education Coalition (whose leadership includes Microsoft Director of Education Policy Allyson Knox).
It is Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, I think comsci qualifies for the last three but not for the first one and I have a comsci degree.
You can't handle the truth.
Where does it say that "computer science must be treated as science, by law"? It declares computer science to be part of STEM. STEM does not simply mean "science" - science is only the "S" in STEM. STEM means "Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math" There's nothing inappropriate about computer science being taught in that grouping.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
If it is backed by those big names and billionaires, I am afraid what the real reasons are.
We are at a situation where we think that people who are not us are fighting our battles, because they (partially) are now the same as ours.
If Microsoft, Google, Apple or any other company gets something done ine politics, they do it for them, not for you.
Just think and go to https://www.isidewith.com/elec... so you can decide with you mind, not with your heart or balls, who YOU think might be right for your future.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Perhaps its different these days, but when I was studying CS back in the 80's, pretty much every accredited program in the US was either part of its Uni's Math Department, or its Engineering Department.
So perhaps people had trouble making up their minds if it was a kind of Math or of Engineering, but either way it should already have been covered in STEM.
It is Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, I think comsci qualifies for the last three but not for the first one and I have a comsci degree.
Computer science is largely a branch of mathematics which is generally considered a formal science.
(Old academic joke)
-Chris
Computer science pretty much is a science. Not your coding classes, computer technology training, etc, but real computer science is very much a science. Of course all courses include some coding and computer technology, and just as you'd expect someone with a Chemistry degree to be able to do the work of a lab technician some one with a CS degree will be able to code and operate computers -- but there is much more than that.
It must of been written by my Third Grade teacher... with her barbaric teaching styles
Sounds like she was more of a butcher than a barber.
Being a "Computer Scientist" I have to say that I consider my profession more of a trade more in line with a plumber or electrician. Sure there are more scientist computer scientists, but they mostly work in universities. If you are a computer scientist and disagree please say so.
The meat of the bill is has to do with money, of course.
The billionaires want the government to fund whatever goofy experiments they have for STEM education. It's always about money.
I have a degree in astrophysics. I work in AI. I don't have an opinion about the issue being discussed.
no, I don't have a sig
some kid sues for science class credit and graduation requirement fulfillment for playing wow.. it's on the computer, and you can craft and make stuff in game... computer + alchemy ... so that's computer science right? just add it up using common core math, you'll see.
politicians need to quit jumping on bandwagons. seriously.
If you build things in Minecraft can you get credit for a computer architecture class?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Great, now we're going to have nutcases trying to force schools to teach "alternative" computer theories! "OK kids, today we're going to talk about Computer Science. Some people claim that software is translated to machine code which is performed by a microprocessor inside each computer, but others believe that a supreme being is monitoring everybody's keystrokes and doing all the math in his head'
Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Math is not a science---it's a philosophical paradigm. There are also some very important differences between science and mathematics because of this. For example, in mathematics, a "absolute" proof can be obtained without empirical evidence.
The concept of a "formal science" is simply a long-winded way of defining an art or discipline. It doesn't make things into a science just because someone says it is.
Also, there is a good smell test to use: If you need to add "science" to the end of it, then it's not a science.
Mathematical science is not a science...
Computer science is not a science...
study climate change.
The science on that is done. Or so I've been told numerous times.
Have gnu, will travel.
There are really thee parts to what most people think of as comp sci - as I see it anyway.
1) Computer Engineering - The design and architecture of machines that do computation
2) Software Engineering - The design of computable algorithms for solving specific problems.
3) Information Theory - Analysis and classification of datums specifically the transmission, processing, utilization, and extraction of information from them. This usually feeds the 'specific problems' the Software Engineering guys are trying to solve.
Really only the last one is a 'science' in its own right. 1) has the sciences of physics under pinning. 2) Is really under pinned by 3 and other branches of mathematics. 3) Means mathematics most of the time but gets a little more science like in the 'scientific method sense' as you move into the quantum world.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Quantum algorithms: sounds like applied math and physics.
Of course, all STEM ultimately becomes math & physics at some level.
Thats low-level STEM. But many welfare-types cant get entry clerk jobs because they dont know how to run MicroSoft Office.
Except the assholes who say software is math, not technology, and therefore it (software) cannot be patented.
Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
The link to wikipedia was for your convenience. The accuracy of my statement stands as computer science IS a type of formal science. This is to differentiate it from an empirical science.
Math is not a science---it's a philosophical paradigm.
Had you bothered to read what I linked to you would have understood the difference between a formal science and an empirical science. Mathematics and computer science largely fall under the banner of formal sciences though they often have a tight relationship with and are used in empirical science investigation.
The concept of a "formal science" is simply a long-winded way of defining an art or discipline.
Though I disagree with you on the "long-winded" assertion, at no time did I contradict this statement. So why are you bothering to argue the exact point I made? I never claimed mathematics was an empirical science so what is your argument?
Also, there is a good smell test to use: If you need to add "science" to the end of it, then it's not a science.
Which is nonsense like so many other rules of thumb. Environmental science, behavioral science, and plenty of other real branches of science use the word in the title. If it uses the scientific method then it is by definition a science. What words you use in the title of a branch of science is irrelevant. If it doesn't use the scientific method (astrology, homeopathy, creationism, etc) then it is by definition not a science. No other means of defining what a science is or isn't is meaningful.
I mean someone who have made money shipping code. Not someone who took an afternoon Code Academy seminar and wrote Hello World in BASIC or javascript.
I was born in the 1950s. Some of my college professors and bosses, though they were scientists, never could code. But I'd say everyone who went through grad school after me could write code, maybe not of production quality. Now there are politicians born in the 60s and 70s, I expect some of them could code. The one I know for sure who is Jared Polis, representative of Boulder County. He made his fortune from an early dotcom greeting card company. Can anyone in Obama's cabinet code?
Fail! You need to prove that any abstracted code is math, not technology. Let's see the proof. Tip: if the abstracted code is man-made and not found in nature, it is still technology.
It's to prevent uncreative, theiving assholes from reducing the inventor's profit margins. That's not assholery, just common sense. It's assholery if the invention is a trivial, obvious combination of pre-existing elements.
I suppose... Honestly, I think that computer programming should be taught more like a trade in a trade school with apprenticeships. My training from the university was so academically focused, that I had to re-educate myself for working in the profession. The university professors probably never had to work a corporate job in their lives to have to solve any real-world problems.
Went to school for computer science. I program, and write APIs, and consume them as well, and I have written ASM, and even had to make a Java compiler in school. What does that make me in your eyes? Will I ever have to make my own Java compiler IRL? No.
Speaking as an outsider looking in, and based on the stories that frequently seem to come out of the US, or at least certain parts there of (creationism, global warming deniers, etc) how about treating science as a science first? :P
Well, if you want to redefine science to suit your needs, then, sure, it's a science.
By the way, what is your definition of science, and how is it different than any other philosophical paradigm?
By your reasoning, one could easily make a convincing case that accounting is a "formal science" unless you want to arbitrarily hold "formal sciences" to include just what you deign to be a science.
Anyhow, all empirical science boils down to Physics, and many physicists use Mathematics as a tool to assist in creating models in an attempt to make sense of their observations. Both Physics and Mathematics are paradigms, but one is a science, and the other is a discipline.
Well, if you want to redefine science to suit your needs, then, sure, it's a science.
Not my definition. A science is any systematic enterprise that follows the scientific method to build and organize knowledge. Nothing more, nothing less. If your activity does not utilize the scientific method then it is by definition not science. What we typically refer to as science is what I (and others) called empirical science.
You are getting WAY to wrapped up in the word science and failing to grasp my point. I'm not arguing that math is a science in the typical use of the term or under my definition above. I didn't invent the term "formal science" and it may not even be a particularly well chosen term. Someone else did that - I'm merely communicating what it is. I didn't invent the term "empirical science". Look up their definitions and learn the distinctions and you'll understand my point. If you can't be bothered then this discussion is pointless.
Correction - if you add "science" to something, it's fairly new and probably not yet mature. There are fields of science with old names (physics, astronomy, chemistry), and following that you put -ology at the end of something to name a science (biology, psychology). Somewhere in the Twentieth Century, we dropped the "-ology" suffix and substituted "science".
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I would love to see a machine (a physical thing) made purely out of math (an abstract thing). Hint: such machines don't exist.
Computer Science is, in actual practice, a branch of Engineering. I think that an engineering degree should be a prerequisite. The successful people that I know in computers and software, including me, have both degrees.
These days, one without the other is not enough.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people writing useful programs with no degree or a degree in something entirely different. But usually those are smaller programs.
If you're building (as some have) a functional device in Minecraft, you certainly ought to get SOME sort of credits for it. Something like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQqWorbrAaY) certainly requires a fair amount of ability.
Wow! That is impressive. A CPU built in minecraft. That I would give some credit for ... if they could explain how it works. 8-)