Seriously what did he mean by that?
Computer science != computer | science
>>51843177
He's "trolling" to get the attention of the class, a classic and very good method to do so.
> It's not about computers.
It's about algorithms and abstract data structures.
> It's not a science.
If you consider science as the understanding of things in the universe (as many seem to), you could argue that because what you study in CS is totally abstract, it doesn't belong there.
CS is neither science (does not observer nature, does not conclude experiments, no Popperism) and it doesn't study computers.
>>51843177
Computer science is older than any programming language or CPU. It was a branch of math/logic, sort of like statistics before it turned into code monkey training because of demand for programmers. It's never been a science, and when people say computers today they mean PCs and smartphones, not Turing machines.
>>51843611
CS does perform experiments though, as well as sharing proof like math
>>51843701
Math is a science though
>>51843611
Math is science.
CS has conjectures and testing, but not always.
CS studies the components that make computers, which is equivalent to the study of computers.
When you say computer science in 2015 people hear "programming le ebic indie game xD"
>>51843728
Math is a tool used in science, but not a science on its own.
The fundamental difference is that science is based on empiricism and math is based on axioms. Empiricism is where you observe the natural world and try to figure out how it works. A scientific theory is right or wrong based on it's ability to predict outcomes observed in nature. A math theory is right or wrong based only on logic. Things are proven by writing them on paper and seeing if it works out, not by making physical measurements. This is why math can prove things about hypercubes with a billion dimensions, and other things which don't physically exist.
>>51843811
>Science is math*
>>51843858
>science is based on empiricism
outdated shit from the 1700s. do you even Karl Popper?
>>51843728
Math is not made to work in the real world.
The only reason you'd "conduct experiments" is because you're trying to make CS into science. 90% of CS is hardly science, it's more like math but it's weird because you're studying things that are man made. Either that or it just becomes mathematics.
>>51843903
Most of math was modeled directly after the real world.
>>51843901
Can you elaborate on how Popper disagrees with my explanation? I didn't want to use the word falsifiability because not everybody would understand what it meant, but I think I covered the concept with this sentence:
> A scientific theory is right or wrong based on it's ability to predict outcomes observed in nature.
>>51843950
But a lot of it doesn't care if it's impossible or not in the real world
>>51843955
it's not about prediction power. it's about explanatory power which empiricism cannot do on its own.
try watching this maybe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A
>>51843975
Just because math CAN handle weird multidimensional shit, doesn't mean it's only about that.
Calculus was literally invented for physics. Imaginary numbers can be used as coordinates or to model springs/waves/circles that are very prevalent in nature.
It makes me lmao when you cs faggots get insecure, just get into a real science like me, or gtfo
>>51843950
>Most of math was modeled directly after the real world.
Definitely not. Things from before ~1700 maybe, but that's such a small fragment.
>>51844127
>like me
>like me
>btw guys, I'm a scientist - you aren't
>everyone look at me
>>51843950
>Most of math was modeled directly after the real world.
math is abstract ideas mapped over 'real world' concepts when they seem to solve a problem enough to use them.
Did you even watch the lecture
>>51843728
Math is science the same way philosophy is. It does not observe. It's just a "What if" scenario.
Computer is "one that computes; specif. an automatic electronic machine for performing calculations."
Science is "possession of knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding."
>>51844032
You've got it backwards. Popper's main thing was that all scientific theories have to be falsifiable, which means they must make testable predictions. An explanation that can't be tested by comparing its predictions to observations is not a scientific theory. Observations are more powerful than explanations in science, you don't change the observations to match what your theory says they should be, you change your theory to match what the observations are.
>>51844223
science is made with philosophy. philosophy is not science.
>>51844247
That's what he's saying, anon.
>>51844242
spoken like a typical empiricist.
observations are theory laden. this is still Popper's domain.
>>51844059
There are no perfect circles in nature. Everything is made of atoms.
>>51844274
There are no atoms in nature. Everything is made of subatomic particles.
>>51843811
>CS studies the components that make computers
are you confusing CS with EE or CE ?
Computer Science just isn't a thing that exists. It's a course sure and you can get a degree in it but Computer Science is just a nonsense term.
Tell anyone you have a degree in computer science and they'll have no idea what it is you actually did. Tell someone you have a degree in Biology and they will though.
>>51844303
>Computer Science just isn't a thing that exists
if it doesn't exist how can we be here talking about it?
>Tell anyone you have a degree in computer science and they'll have no idea what it is you actually did. Tell someone you have a degree in Biology and they will though.
i have no idea what biologists do. study biology? sounds like studying computers.
>>51844223
>>51843903
>>51843858
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/mathematics
>>51844273
The interpretation of observation changes with the scientific paradigm, but observations themselves do not change. The ancient Greeks were geocentrists who did a really good job observing and recording how the sun and moon moved across the sky. These observations are still accurate.
>>51844500
unless information streams directly into your mind as pure truth then observations are based on theories and subject to fallibility on top of error in measurement from tools to the photons hitting your eye.
>>51844408
>http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/mathematics
What's your point? They come to the exact same conclusion as the anons you're responding to.
>>51844715
No, they conclude that there's a debate.
Math fits all the check boxes easily except the "natural" part where they say it is easily used by all other sciences to describe natural processes.
>>51844755
They're saying the debate is on exactly *how* it comes that our mathematical language can be used to explain the world so well, but they explicitly say math != science.
>>51844553
You need to make the assumption that objective measurements exist in order to do science. The entire methodology falls apart when the value a scale or thermometer gives you is just an opinion instead of objective truth.
> on top of error in measurement from tools
The tools used are part of the observation. The accuracy of test equipment is known and recorded. We have error bars for a reason.
>>51844755
>>51844809
Also note that this is a popular scientific article aimed at laymen, so take everything they say with a grain of salt, even though it's published by Berkeley.
>>51844849
>>51844809
>However, math and standard sciences, like biology, physics, and chemistry, are distinct in at least one way: how ideas are tested and accepted based on evidence. Math doesn't rely on testing ideas against evidence from the natural world in the same way that other sciences do. Mathematical ideas are often accepted based on deductiveproofs, while ideas in other sciences are generally accepted based on the accumulation of many different observations supporting the idea.
>Is math an inherent part of how the universe works, or is it a language we've constructed to help us describe that universe? The answers to these questions are a matter of debate.
Sorry buddy. The debate is only on empiricism vs proof as the measurement. In every other way every single person agrees that math is scientific.
>>51843177
Why isn't CS called computer mathematics?
>>51844917
>The debate is only on empiricism vs proof as the measurement
No? Math obviously doesn't deal with empiricism. There is absolutely no debate there. Did you even read the quote you posted?
>>51844988
Holy shit you can't read.
The "debate" is simply whether empiricism is the definition of science or not.
>>51845032
The site is talking about whether math fits their definition of science, not what is the correct definition of science.
>>51845032
Who's debating that? It's like debating if not eating meat is the definition of vegitarianism.
>>51844934
Why call it Computer * instead of mathematical logic?
>taking "education" seriously
Get out of that shit as fast as you can and learn things on your own. All they're doing is training you to be a memorization expert and seeing how much bullshit you can take so they can put you on the corporate ladder to nowhere.
>>51845276
No one is talking about education?
>>51843177
>>51843177
I stopped watching this series about the part where images were being discussed.
How could you even use any of the stuff learned up to that point?
>>51845431
>image of a PROFESSOR TEACHING CIS
>OP ASKING ABOUT IT
>hurr this isn't about education
Goddamn it, children, you all NEED some goddamn education. Seriously, just stop thinking you're in any way mature and go back to preschool.
Computer Science is not based on any real-world computer. It is not based on experiment or observation of the world. It is pure mathematics.
>>51843177
CS is a subset of math and math isn't technically a science
CS isn't technically about computers either
>>51843728
a proof isn't a scientific experiment
>>51845750
The thread moved away from the initial question pretty fast.
>>51845714
Comes in handy if you want to achieve Satori.
>>51845714
It comes in handy if you ever want to achieve Satori.
Computer Science is the scientific approach to studying and understanding computational structures.
>>51845790
>>51845814
My first post didn't appear until I posted again, I swear!
>>51843177
He's an EE fag, he doesn't know shit about CS so he doesn't pretend to teach it. Instead, he decided to teach programming.
>>51844295
There are no subatomic particles in nature. Everything is made of energy.
>>51843950
"Computation" isn't "man-made".
>>51846051
everything is man-made, including your understanding of those "natural occurrances"
you were never meant to comprehend nature, sentience was a cosmic glitch.
>>51846078
aaaaand thread over
I already know a few programming languages, I don't know shit about design. Should I read SICP, what's the preferred method if so, do I just read the book, do I just watch the lectures, some combination of both?
Would something like "The Practice of Programming" be more valuable? Should I read both?
>>51846143
Have you read your SICP today?
>>51846207
Not yet.
>>51843594
Computer Science is not a science because it doesn't rely on the scientific method.
>>51846285
>I have no idea what I'm talking about!
If you watched the video it came from, you would know.
Computer Science concerns a lot of theory that is abstracted away from the machine it is running on. To paraphrase him, computer science is no more to do with computers than geology has to do with surveying instruments. These are merely the tools with which we use to do our studies.
As for why it's not a science, the argument comes from the same reason that many don't want to call mathematics a science -- it mostly involves inductive reasoning, rather than empirical reasoning. Science revolves around theories based in evidence that can only be disproved by other evidence. Mathematics and computer science are grounded in abstract logic that is impossible to disprove. A scientist might say that they're "pretty damn sure" that a turing machine to detect infinite loops in finite time does not exist. A computer scientist will tell you that he can guarantee 100% of the time, that if you showed him such a turing machine, he can show you another turing machine that would show your turing machine would not function as advertised. A number of computer scientists are "pretty damn sure" P != NP, but that doesn't mean we aren't still trying to find a proof one way or another that will make us 100% sure.
>>51846143
SICP will teach you the principles behind procedural programming, functional programming, object oriented programming, and imperative programming. You will learn procedural programming and functional programming in the first chapter by designing solutions to problems by breaking them into smaller problems. You will learn object oriented programming in the second chapter by defining new data types by defining procedures to operate on them. You will learn imperative programming in chapter three by exploring the complications of using assignment. Chapter four teaches you how to write some simple interpreters with different semantics than Scheme. Finally, Chapter five will talk about register machines or something.
>>51847699
Thanks for the breakdown, it seems worth doing.
>>51843811
Math is not science
>>51847351
Isn't this just using some grammar rules to derive an expression... Take a compilers course
>>51844988
There is a degree of empiricism in math. In order to even come up with a proof, you have to notice a pattern when it comes to a mathematical object.
