
Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy - chrisaycock
http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/admissions/ugrad/Computer_Science_and_Philosophy
======
mayank
Caveat: this is an anecdote, and your mileage may vary, but I think it
illustrates a point of contention in the "two cultures".

As a computer science major in the US, I once took a "philosophy of mind"
course out of a genuine multi-faceted interest in AI. I was working on
undergraduate machine learning research at the time, so I used to pore over
the green Norvig/Stewart AI book like a religious text. Unfortunately, the
philosophy course seemed deeply rooted in classical theories like dualism
(which I think of as a rationalization for religious dogma), ignoring any and
all modern advances in neuroscience. The final straw was the lecture unit on
"artificial minds". There was a lot of uninformed speculation about AI, which
really disappointed me. The professor (and textbooks) completely ignored
beautiful advances like Godel's theorem, which would make a great foundation
for philosophizing about axiomatic "minds". I tried to speak up about what AI
really is, even tried bringing Russell/Norvig into class, but I don't know if
it was the professor or the students who were more resistant to facts clogging
up the debate.

Anyway, I have nothing against philosophers, and I believe that they are an
important part of the intellectual framework of academia. However, in inter-
disciplinary cases like this, I really hope that they get people that can
successfully straddle both sides of the divide. Stephen Hawking's quote in his
new book comes to mind. I don't remember the exact words, but it was along the
lines that a lot (not all, naturally) of philosophers have closed themselves
off to science and thus denied themselves access to the greatest intellectual
developments of the 20th century.

~~~
scott_s
If physics was taught the same way philosophy is, we'd learn about the four
elements before getting to Newtonian mechanics.

~~~
sp332
Every high school chemistry textbook I've seen actually works this way! It's
horrible. The chapter starts with Dalton, works up through Rutherford and
Bohr, and the last two or three I've seen ended there. Each section is
presented as fact, and the kids are quizzed to make sure they know the
material, before tearing it all down and teaching them a new bogus theory in
the next section. Ugh.

~~~
kanak
Am I the only one who enjoyed this approach?

I was taught atomic theory chronologically starting with the plum pudding
model, then rutherford's model, then Bohr's model and finally the quantum
models.

At each stage, the focus was on:

* What observations led the scientists in question to propose the model? e.g. in Rutherford's case, there was an extensive discussion on the gold-foil experiment, the observations he saw, and the conclusions he drew from it (e.g. that a lot of mass must be packed into a tiny space).

* What properties follow from adopting them model? e.g. with Rutherford's model, the notion of an accelerating charged particle (electron) would mean that the electron would continuously lose energy until it crashes into the nucleus. obviously this isn't happening.

* Repeat the cycle: how did bohr's model attempt to overcome these problems.

We did the same with the theories on acids and bases: how Arrhenius' concept
required the notion of liquid to be present, how Bronsted and Lowry formulated
it more generally as proton donation and acceptance, and how Lewis formulated
it in terms of electrons.

I like that at each step, we learned WHY these models were proposed and how
they explained the phenomena seen until then. We learned WHAT the consequences
of making a physical model are, and we learned WHAT new observations could not
be accounted for. Then we learned about how concepts are generalized to
account for more information.

In contrast, if I had just been shown a beautiful but complex model at the
beginning, I'm not sure I would have learned as much or held as much interest.
The difference is like seeing a very elegant proof to a problem vs seeing the
different half-correct approaches culminating into a final solution. I feel
that if the goal is to teach people how to think like scientists, show them
the process not the final result.

~~~
eavc
I last took chemistry in 10th grade, and I too was exposed to the progressive
chronology of atomic theory.

While today I would appreciate it for what you point out, at the time, those
lessons were lost on me, and I was a thoughtful kid. I think if the pedagogy
were more oriented around the progess of the scientific method, it would have
been fantastic.

It seemed misguided, though, in the context of a chemistry chapter on the
nature of atoms. Let's also not fail to acknowledge that a gifted teacher can
make all the difference in how a given approach might be, and I imagine that
the more complex, contextual picture that respects that our understanding is
still evolving would be superior in the hands of a gifted teacher.

------
DanielBMarkham
These two fields have been begging to merge for several years now. Great to
see it happening.

I'd like to see extended to a post-grad program. You could choose either
business coding or academic coding. Both are rich areas for combining these
two disciplines. Philosophy gives CS a broader, more conceptual view of how
things fit together, and CS gives philosophy something useful to do -- it
provides a hard edge from which to judge whether one philosophical stance is
more or less useful in a given situation.

~~~
_delirium
You can manage to do something like that as a CS PhD if you have the right
advisor, though it's harder to pull off than it used to be as CS has gotten
much more obsessed about being a rigorous science. It especially used to be
the case in AI, and in some corners still is, that a good thesis makes
conceptual and philosophical advances in analyzing problems and domains (or
proposing new problems), which are "validated" not only via mathematical
theorems, user studies, or benchmarks, but by arguing for your conclusions,
the way a philosophy thesis would (though of course technical results can be
used to bolster the argument where appropriate). The PhD theses Douglas
Hofstadter supervises are an example.

~~~
Poleris
I would deeply appreciate advice from you or anyone who has thoughts.

I did a double major in CS and Business during my undergrad at CMU ('09) and
focused very much on practical learning (read: programming/web apps) and
corporate/startup endeavors. However, I was always drawn towards studying the
relationship between minds and machines on my own time. Mostly triggered from
Godel's theorem, reading GEB/AI books, and some obsessive impulse to learn
about my own mind.

Now that I'm working my first job, this impulse is stronger than ever. I find
myself reading papers/books on philosophy, anthropic mechanism, AI, etc.
during what free time I have. I suspect that I should study a PhD in this
subject, given this impulse doesn't seem to be going away.

However, I have absolutely no research experience and had little contact with
professors during my undergrad. Would you advise I seriously pursue this
intellectual interest as a PhD (versus during my free time)? If so, do you
have any thoughts on how I should go about applying? Given that most
applications require research recommendations, I was thinking of contacting
professors of papers I admired, but am not sure how well that approach would
work.

Thank you for reading! My email is in my profile if that works better.

~~~
poet
A PhD is a formal license to do research and it marks the start (not the end)
of a lifetime of research. You need such a license if you plan to work at a
company with a rigid corporate ladder or in academia.

The only additional reason to get a PhD besides the license is an increased
probability of being in contact with peers who you can collaborate with.
People often undervalue this but empirically it's pretty clear what the
benefits of having at least one research collaborator are.

If you actually do decide to go for a PhD, you're going to need at least one
strong recommendation that speaks to your research ability if you want to get
into a top program. Your undergrad institution and GPA put you in the running
to be sure, but admissions committees are looking for evidence that you can
perform research. Recommendations that say "this kid got an A in my class and
is a good student" don't really have an impact on your application either way.

------
zoomzoom
As an undergrad philosopher who became self-taught hacker after graduation, I
can say with confidence that this is a great synthesis.

While contemporary academic philosophy is little more than a circular passing
of jargon, there is no doubt that the practice of philosophy has inspired
great science. Kant, for example, wrote books about anatomy and other
empirical topics prior to this metaphysical work, and made prescient
suggestions about the existence of other galaxies and the theory of evolution.
Perhaps an infusion of CS will help win Philosophy back from the ivory tower.

~~~
rpbertp13
As another undergrad philosopher turned self-taught hacker I wouldn't see why
you'd want Philosophy to come down from the ivory tower. It's hard to imagine
what would be of Philosophy today if Kant had spent all his life writing about
science and hadn't given us the Critique of Pure Reason.

~~~
zoomzoom
The point is that the CPR was only possible because of his earlier work in the
"hard" sciences, at least in IMHO.

------
boredguy8
How does an American get in to a program like this? Especially if, say
hypothetically, they dropped out of school to work.

~~~
rm445
The teaching at Oxford (and Cambridge) is stellar and more Americans should
consider it as an option. Getting onto an undergraduate programme is
competitive but egalitarian: you need to show you are a top performer
academically and then impress at an interview. Your competition at the
application stage is (very roughly speaking) the smartest kid from every
British school. Very few of them will get in; every course has many more
applicants than places.

The Oxford University Entrance requirements,
[http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate_courses/courses...](http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate_courses/courses/courses_and_entrance_requirements/)
, state the following:

"US qualifications: Successful candidates would typically have SAT Reasoning
Test scores of at least 700 in Critical Reading, Mathematics and the Writing
Paper, or ACT with a score of at least 32 out of 36. We would also expect
Grade 5 in three or more Advanced Placement tests in appropriate subjects or
SAT Subject Tests in three appropriate subjects at 700 or better."

\- I have no idea what that all means, but for comparison, every single Brit
applying will have straight A-grades in their A-levels, and selection is
almost entirely based on the interview (and in some cases, extra advanced
examinations). So take these entrance requirements with a pinch of salt;
they're necessary but not sufficient.

All that said, the colleges have extremely wide lee-way in how they make their
offers, so exceptional candidates with a slightly offbeat scholastic record
might have a chance. Some cynics also note that foreign students may have an
advantage because they bring in far more money. But all in all the academic
requirements are quite high. To sum up, it's very hard to get in, but not
because of prejudice or snobbery, just intense competition.

~~~
corin_
Overall a good answer, however there is something to add.

For British students, once you turn twenty-one you no longer have the same
strict entry requirements, instead it's more a case of proving that you're the
kind of person they want than showing what exams you've passed. (Though
they're likely to ask you to do some studying before applying, to demonstrate
that you're willing/able to learn.)

Most likely the same for international 'mature students' as well.

~~~
user24
Yeah, I applied as a mature student to an MSc program and was accepted. At the
time I had a first class IT and Philosophy BA, 4-ish years commercial
programming experience, and an E grade at AS level Psychology.

------
rdouble
I did a math and philosophy double major. The danger of a degree like this is
that the stark reality of a programming job will seem unbearably boring in
comparison to what you studied in school.

~~~
etherealG
I would say you have the wrong type of programming job then. Some can be
massively creative and require "philosophical" thought. Areas that come to
mind are the ones in computer science which bleed over naturally into
philosophy, e.g. AI.

~~~
nervechannel
Yes, and graduates with an interdisciplinary background and strong reasoning
skills are more likely to get the interesting jobs than pure software
engineers who know JUnit inside-out.

(Generalizing from myself with a sample size of one)

------
user24
I completed my MSc in Computer Science at Oxford in 2009. My undergrad degree
was a joint honours IT and Philosophical Studies BA (UoW Lampeter).

From my (limited) knowledge of how comlab/Oxford works, it looks like students
will be splitting their time between the philosophy department and comlab.

I can't quite see how they're marrying the two together. I know from my first
degree that it's a great combination - there's more crossover than you'd
initially think. But it does rather seem as though you'd just be splitting
your time between two very different departments, rather than literally
studying the two subjects in harmony.

Interesting development though.

(PS: happy to answer your questions about Oxford/CS/applying/etc)

------
niels
Peter Naur (Turing award winner) wrote an Antiphilosophical Dictionary.
<http://www.naur.com/Antiphil.html>.

------
ezyang
I'm a computer scientist currently taking the History and Philosophy of
Science course at Cambridge (an interesting combination that is one of the
perks of being an exchange student) and wholeheartedly endorse this. Logic,
with its philosophical roots, has had an enormous impact on Computer Science,
and I believe Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Mathematics have a lot
to say about Computer Science. (AI is a kind of special child: I think you
need some neuroscience added in as well.)

------
jasamer
I'm studying Computer Science+Philosophy in Munich, although, technically,
Philosophy is a part of my CS studies (one can choose a subject different from
CS to do some credits in, many choose Math/Physics, I chose Philosophy). The
fun thing is that when I wrote my motivational letter about why I wanted to do
Philosophy, my reasoning why I'd want to do it was almost the same as in this
article.

------
pauldoerwald
I recently completed my M.Sc in Software Engineering at the University of
Oxford (Soft Eng is closely affiliated with ComLab, but is a slightly separate
department) and I can only speak well of the program, its lecturers, and its
resources. This looks like a great program; if I were 18 again I might
consider going to Oxford for this undergrad degree.

~~~
chrisaycock
There are several Oxonians on HN from the looks of it. I read for my DPhil in
Computing, as did @cperciva.

~~~
swombat
There certainly are. The Oxbridge mafia is everywhere _shifty eyes_.

I'm pretty sure there's at least a few dozen moderately active HN users from
Oxford (I'm one).

~~~
jedc
And there are a number of Cambridge grads here, too. (And quite a few that are
YC founders!)

------
simonsarris
My college (RPI) had been pushing something very similar for a while now,
which is why I have a degree in Computer Science and Philosophy.

They strongly encouraged CS majors to dual-major in CS/Philosophy or
CS/Psychology. It was called the "Minds and Machines" program and was a
precursor to their full-on undergraduate Cognitive Science program, Which
didn't exist when I started in 2006 but does today.

I went in as Computer Science and picked up the CS/Philosophy dual-major in my
first semester after talking at length to my advisor (who was head of Minds
and Machines and is now head of Cognitive Science).

People ask me about it a lot when they find out, but to me it always seemed
like an impeccably good match.

~~~
gwern
> My college (RPI) had been pushing something very similar for a while now,
> which is why I have a degree in Computer Science and Philosophy.

That almost happened to me. I started with CS at RIT, but since they didn't
have a philosophy major, I left as a sophomore.

Apparently, the year after I left, they got a major. I was told by a professor
that I was one of the examples used in the lobbying for the major. This didn't
make me feel much better.

------
bobds
I was reminded of the following excerpt in Howard Marks' book "Mr. Nice", who
wanted to study Philosophy of Science in Oxford University many decades ago:

"There was a problem with respect to how my diploma course would be financed.
In those days there were two main grant-giving bodies funding postgraduate
study: the Department of Education and the Science Research Council. The
former limited its grants to graduates in non-scientific subjects while the
latter would only fund students undertaking research degrees in the pure
sciences. These regulations precluded my Philosophy of Science studies being
funded by either body."

------
michaelleland
Strongly reminiscent of John Galt's (and his friends') degrees in Atlas
Shrugged by Ayn Rand--they studied physics and philosophy together. Then then
changed the world.

------
joshrule
I actually majored in both computer science and philosophy at a school with a
top 5 CS program and a top 50 philosophy program. I found the combination
useful, but eventually grew frustrated with much of the philosophy. My classes
often spent more time splitting hairs than trying to say useful things. The
philosophy that actually proved most useful were my logic courses, and one or
two papers from philosophy of mind.

That said, philosophy is incredibly important. But, as PG has noted, we tend
to do a poor job of it (<http://paulgraham.com/philosophy.html>). We need to
spend more time focused on saying useful, testable things. In short, the best
scientific results merge with philosophy. So, everyone should be a
philosopher, but should do the majority of their philosophy as science.

Again, both philosophy and computer science are important, but after studying
both pretty intensely for 3.5 years (I graduated with over 180 credit hours),
you have to pick and choose the philosophy. It's mostly useful for setting the
initial biases on which the rest of your science will depend and for
continuing to think about things science can't speak to, yet.

------
igravious
Hey, get this ...

Maybe Comp. Sci. is too important to be in the "Sciences". What about all
those in the humanities that would benefit from knowing how to code and having
the basics of knowledge about data structures and algorithms?

I know many numbers of people with history degrees, philosophy degrees (myself
included), you name it - who taught themselves how to code because it was
impossible for them to take comp sci course as part of humanities.

There is this new field of electronic poetry where poets use the power of
computers and the internet to create a new kind of poetry. These people
generally come from a background in literature and they are very creative
types but they have to enlist the help of graphics designers and programmers
to do computer side of things as opposed to the poetic side of things.

It is like literacy. Before the twentieth century pervasive literacy was not
the norm. I would argue that computers are nearly too ubiquitous and will only
become more and more so that computer literacy is a real hindrance. The option
should be there to those that want it.

Computer science, mathematics and logic should inhabit a third academic space
in academia I would argue. Science/Engineering, Comp Sci/Math/Logic,
Humanities ...

Any takers? :)

~~~
jokermatt999
I'd say basic coding should be taught in the typical "typing and MS Office"
classes, if possible. I don't mean higher level concepts, but a simple footing
in it can help a lot.

------
quinndupont
How many people on Hacker News have actually studied philosophy? Judging by
the top-ranked comments it seems like a) few have studied philosophy
seriously, and b) few seem to think there is much value in philosophy.

(And by "seriously", I mean beyond a passing understanding of philosophy of
mind. If you haven't read the better part of the canon, including boring folk
such as Kant or Descartes, that isn't being serious)

~~~
epochwolf
I took a few classes and probably could have written exactly what PG wrote[1]
on it.

[1]: <http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html>

------
RobotGrrl
This looks extremely exciting for the realm of social robotics, as the two
disciplines will feed off of each other. It will be interesting to see the
depth of the behaviour algorithms created while learning more about
philosophy. Perhaps we will be more concerned with other factors in the
behaviour, rather than just how it "appears" to the human (or whatever is
interacting with it).

Hopefully they won't rely too much on SAT marks for the admission process, and
will look at our portfolios. It would be a shame to miss out on a potential
star for this program because of low standard test grades. This is a super
opportunity!

------
jph00
I majored in philosophy at university. My business partner has a PhD in
computer science. When we started working together, we discovered that we had
studied many of the same things - Godel's theorem, the halting problem,
boolean logic, etc. Much of his overlapping stuff came from a subject called
"Theory of Computation", whereas mine came from "Formal Logic" and
"Metamathematics".

I think the idea of combining the fields is really brilliant. Nowadays I do a
lot of programming (I founded a couple of businesses that are software-
focussed), and would love to have had just this kind of educational
background.

------
keiferski
Many of you are confusing "analytic" philosophy with all of philosophy. There
are numerous distinct schools, with distinct thinkers and lines of thought.
Assuming that a single quality applies to a uniform field of "philosophy" is
completely misguided. There is no such thing as a uniform field of philosophy.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy>

------
derrida
This is only reasonable, after all, philosophers at the beginning of the 20th
century are responsible for theories about languages and logic that directly
lead to the computer. If only those wanking on about "the semantic web" cared
to look at some of the philosophy done since the 70s by folks such as Saul
Kripke, they might discover that the idea of semantically competent computers
is as likely as conscious computers.

------
onan_barbarian
Hah. Did this combo as a undergrad.

Loved CS. Loved Philosophy. Hated their intersection, which I thought I was
going to base my career around, when I was 17. Oops.

Still a fun degree though.

------
nivertech
I hated worked with people who did philosophy degrees.

The biggest problem with them, that they dare to reason about things, which
they never learnt or have no hands-on experience.

They will substitute benchmarks and experiments by their theoretical logical
conclusions.

Same thing happens with people, who have PhD in one field and try to reason
about things in different distant domain.

------
binarymax
I tried to sort of create a program like this for myself 15 years ago. I ended
up with a B.S. in comp sci and math - with one credit short of a philosophy
minor. Unfortunately there were no professors asking the fusion questions, but
I did some reading when I could.

~~~
igravious
That's a real shame. I hope you still keep up to date with philosophical
thought.

You might think that philosophy moves very slowly but a few disciplines that
have emerged are bio-ethics, deep-ecology, connections between aesthetics and
justice and all ground is gone over all the time.

I got a degree in phil. and math. I taught myself how to program and read
theoretical comp sci books on data structures and algorithms, operating
systems and compiler theory, type theory and symbolic calculus and the church
/ turing thesis and so on to flesh out the other side but I would dearly love
to have been formally taught the comp sci stuff because in truth I went
through it all for the love of it and have rarely applied that knowledge :)

I feel like I'm split down the middle, I am delighted that there now exists a
course like this. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

------
fogus
I double-majored in CS and Philosophy during undergrad, but didn't want to
stay an extra semester to complete the requirements for the latter. It's
something that I hope to complete one day so maybe several months in Oxford is
an option for the future.

------
cgopalan
Its almost eerie (in a positive way) that I see this post right when I was
thinking about something along the lines of how an effective engineering
course should be structured. Only recently I developed an interest in the
classics (greek and roman) and also started reading Milton's "Paradise lost",
and Seneca's "On the shortness of life". Two things stood out in a lot of
these works - 1) the richness of content - meaning how inevitably it makes you
think hard while reading, and 2) the usage of language in a way that makes you
see the language in a whole new light (especially in Milton's classic -
English never looked so beautiful!!). During the process of reading these
classics, I was convinced that a 3-4 year study of an engineering (or science)
discipline would only be vastly improved if the subject matter had its share
of philosophy and literature (call it "lit-phil"). I would go so far as to say
that it should be a 50-50 split. There There will always be a debate as to
what works should be included, but the amount of quality work is so vast that
being selective would not matter. We can argue that to incorporate this into
the same 3-4 years of study, we could eliminate some of the engineering course
material to make way. Do we really need all those engineering subjects in that
much detail?

So then should be an arts degree at all? I would say yes, and thats only for
people who just feel overwhelmed by science or engineering (who I come across
aplenty) and prefer to study only the arts. If there should be an arts-only
degree, why would I propose that engineering be always accompanied by study of
lit-phil? Simply because I believe that a mind that needs to grasp engineering
has to be somewhat prepared by philosophy and literature and whetted
constantly by it during the study.

Now, the only kicker is that at the age of doing a bachelors (which is between
17-19 and 21-23 for the majority), the average engineering bachelor student
would not be mature enough to appreciate a healthy dosage of lit-phil. They
would inevitably ask why they are being subjected to something totally
unrelated - whereas they do not understand that the subject matter is slowly
working on their brain in the background (if they care to put an effort into
it).

Hope this does not come across as a rant against engineering. I studied
electrical engineering and have utmost regard for the field (much more so than
"software engineering" - and I am not talking about computer science and
engineering here). But I believe its crucial to pay attention to how we
inculcate that engineering knowledge into minds in general. And develop
engineers that are not afraid to think and contemplate.

------
quanticle
How is this different from majoring in computer science and minoring in
philosophy?

~~~
Swannie
This is approximately a "double major".

For those in the UK unaware, "X and Y" suggests an approximate 50:50 split. "X
with Y" suggests a heavy emphasis on X, more of a 75:25 split.

And as others have pointed out, in the UK, apart from in some specific degrees
(Cambridge Science Tripos springs to mind), the idea of completing a degree
out of mainly self-selected units is a bit crazy.

------
jonallanharper
Rand's theory of concepts is the explicit cognitive framework of induction and
abstraction - both vital to comp sci endeavors. To overlook her work is a
tremendous oversight, a detriment to this congruency.

------
tlrobinson
This sounds great. My favorite semester during college (majored in comp sci /
engineering) was when I took a philosophy course along with my regular CS and
math courses.

------
liuhenry
When is this being implemented? It wasn't an option for the 2011 application
cycle, and unfortunately it's a real hassle to change courses from the one you
applied to.

------
akeefer
I did my BA in philosophy (focusing mainly on ethics and political philosophy)
and my MS in computer science, and I personally found the mix to work
incredibly well, though not in the obvious way many people expect (which tends
to be around epistemology and logic on the philosophy side and AI on the
computer science side).

The point of a philosophy education is not to teach you anything in
particular; there's no body of knowledge to absorb in the same way that there
is for math or any scientific or engineering discipline. At most, you can
treat a philosophy education as a history course focusing on the history of
human thought (which is why, in response to some other posters, it's important
in philosophy to study the past, even if no one believes such things anymore:
it's more like history than physics).

The really valuable thing for me, however, was learning the process itself:
how to make assumptions and pre-conditions clear and separate them from the
rest of your thinking, how to make arguments clearly and fairly, how to break
complex questions or topics down into smaller pieces and the put them back
together, how to not take it personally when someone disagrees with you. A
philosophy course of study will also make you a better, clearer writer and
communicator. (And yes, sure, there's plenty of room for BSing and
incomprehensibility in there, but if you take that away from a philosophy
course you're missing out.)

All those skills translate and complement computer science very well. At its
core, the process of software engineering (as opposed to just programming) is
the art of taking something really complex and breaking it down into the right
set of components: ones that are large enough to be useful, but small enough
to be correct, and with the right relationships between them. Taking a large
program or problem and breaking it down like that is basically exactly the
same set of skills that you develop when you study (and do) analytic
philosophy. Being able to clearly separate assumptions, facts, conjecture,
predictions, and arguments is also a key skill in a domain like CS where
thinking outside the box, as it were, is always important, and where the rules
and possibilities change so rapidly. And of course, it never hurts to become a
better writer: I've worked with and known some brilliant engineers who were
far less productive than they should have been simply because they couldn't
present their ideas clearly enough to other people, and there's simply no way
to get a team to all work in the same direction if they don't all share the
same vision. A brilliant idea that no one else understands because it's been
poorly communicated is usually fairly worthless.

As an aside: I know PG doesn't seem to think he got much value out of his
philosophy classes, but I wonder if his essays would be as clearly thought out
and put together as they are without it. I certainly know my own writing would
be far less clear (and far less rigorous) if I hadn't done my BA in philosophy
and if I'd just focused on CS.

~~~
_sh
I also did my BA in philosophy (epistemology and Heidegger) and my MS in
computer science. I sell my philosophy experience as an ability to quickly
understand and manipulate abstract concepts. I used to be pretty confident
with this position, but these days I am less so.

I think the greatest benefit of my undergrad years haunting the philosophy
department is that if I'm going to argue a point, I'm damn sure I'll have
satisfied myself with my position, and have ready refutations for all counter-
arguments I can think of. I don't comment much on web sites because the rigour
of this far exceeds the two cents my opinion is worth.

My advice for anyone contemplating philosophy is this: learn to be good with
analogies. Explaining abstract concepts is difficult and a good analogy (and
here I mean a genuinely fitting one) goes a long, long way. If you spend a lot
of time just thinking about stuff anyway, studying philosophy really gives you
a lot of quite interesting stuff to think about: what is truth? Can we know
something without expressing knowledge of it? If so, how can I know that you
know something without your expressing it? A heady trapdoor indeed.

------
KevinMS
So take a degree, CS, which is almost irrelevant to most working developers,
and mix in something that is irrelevant to almost everybody alive.

I'm already seeing job adds for sysadmins, php programmers and front end
developers requiring a CS degree. In the future they'll be philosophers too?

------
scotty79
Philosophy is what you do when you don't know something and don't know how to
actually discover anything about it but you are not wise enough to let it go
and find something you could actually discover something about.

~~~
sid0
_Philosophy is what you do when you don't know something and don't know how to
actually discover anything about it but you are not wise enough to let it go
and find something you could actually discover something about._

That sounds like a lot of research in maths and CS.

~~~
scotty79
Math and cs can be researched because hypothesis in math and cs can be shown
to be wrong. Can you point one theory that was ruled out to be wrong thanks to
philosophy? If you can't then how can you find philosophy and (any) research
similar?

------
scotty79
Great. Next joint course: Operating Heavy Machinery and Scrapbooking.

