
The Philosophy of Computer Science (2013) - primelens
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/
======
walterbell
_" Who is the most original and the most versatile intellect that the Americas
have so far produced? The answer "Charles S. Peirce" is uncontested, because
any second would be so far behind as not to be worth nominating.
Mathematician, astronomer, chemist, geodesist, surveyor, cartographer,
metrologist, spectroscopist, engineer, inventor; psychologist, philologist,
lexicographer, historian of science, mathematical economist, lifelong student
of medicine; book reviewer, dramatist, actor, short story writer;
phenomenologist, semiotician, logician, rhetorician and metaphysician.

He was, for a few examples, the first modern experimental psychologist in the
Americas, the first metrologist to use a wave-length of light as a unit of
measure, the inventor of the quincuncial projection of the sphere, the first
known conceiver of the design and theory of an electric switching-circuit
computer, and the founder of "the economy of research." He is the only system-
building philosopher in the Americas who has been both competent and
productive in logic, in mathematics, and in a wide range of sciences. If he
has had any equals in that respect in the entire history of philosophy, they
do not number more than two."_

\--Max H. Fisch in Sebeok, The Play of Musement

[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/)

~~~
j2kun
Reading through the background materials, some of the claims they make seem a
bit suspect. Many of the "discoveries" are that he suggested something might
be possible without actually giving any evidence or construction besides his
own philosophical musings. This is in re: cardinals, information theory, and
computers. And then because someone did it later he is cited as a genius
before his time.

But if he wrote over 10,000 pages of publications and articles, how many of
his claims and ideas were false, misleading, or inaccurate? Is genius measured
by the number of ideas that don't come to fruition, or by lasting successes?
We don't cite Darwin as a politician despite his writings about the politics
of his time. Nor do we particularly praise Turing as an athlete despite his
running hobby.

~~~
walterbell
> _how many of his claims and ideas were false, misleading, or inaccurate?_

A century has passed and his work has been analyzed by a variety of academics.
Pointers to capable critiques would be welcome.

------
yzzxy
I'm considering several undergrad degree programs in computer science through
university philosophy departments. Has anyone had a similar experience who
could share their feedback? I've really enjoyed reading the basic philosophy
I've covered so far and things like decision and game theory also fascinate
me. I think it could also be a good track to AI research, though probably not
the modern machine learning style?

Also considering combining one of these majors with a more traditional CS or
EECS degree.

~~~
tjradcliffe
I have an undergraduate degree in engineering, a PhD in physics and some post-
graduate education in philosophy, and have worked closely with philosophers on
real problems in epistemology and metaphysics, mostly around identity theory.

On the basis of that experience, I would recommend focusing on a traditional
CS or EECS degree, and take philosophy on the side.

By taking a traditional degree you will provide yourself with a deep, broad
foundation from which to evaluate various philosophical mutterings, and will
be well-positioned to realize just how imbecilic most of them are.

There is a mathematician's joke that be successful in math you need a pencil,
a paper, and a garbage can, while to be successful in philosophy you only need
a pencil and paper (philosophers publish their mistakes, and sometimes build
careers on them.)

Philosophy does have uses. It encourages a certain kind of rigour in thinking,
but the content of the subject is mostly philosopher's imaginations, and three
hundred years of science has taught us that the human imagination is almost
completely useless for understanding reality. What we can or cannot imagine is
utterly unrelated to what actually is.

AJ Ayer, for example, could not imagine the kind of empirical test of
metaphysical propositions that Bell showed we could actually perform. A
willful ignorance of the poverty of imagination as a tool for understanding
reality was the basis for the entire Positivist program, which was,
unsurprisingly, a failure.

So stick with the core subject and extend your reach to philosophy. You'll be
far better served that way, and when you do philosophize it will have a far
higher chance of being insightful and useful rather than obvious nonsense to
anyone actually in the field you are philosophizing about.

~~~
SoloMune
What is the difference between EECS vs Computer Engineering? I want to major
in engineering while also gaining experience in Computer Science.

~~~
hkmurakami
More pertinent is what the program actually does (depends on school) rather
than the surface level label.

------
j2kun
Considering that computer science these days is almost all about complexity
and not computability, this article seems to be lacking. And moreover, where
are all of the great minds from the last thirty years? Certainly the Turing
award winners after Knuth have said interesting things.

