
Philosophy of Computer Science [pdf] - quazar
https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/phics.pdf
======
dredmorbius
This is obviously too big to be digested in a single chunk, but from a very
brief first read, it looks impressive. The table of contents alone (19 pages)
is an extraordinarily good outline of what CS is, and what the major
components and questions of it are.

The author is William J. Rapaport, emeritus professor of computer science at
SUNY Buffalo:
[https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/](https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/)

Wikipedia bio:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Rapaport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Rapaport)

Trivium: WJR is the author of "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo
buffalo".

There've been some earlier submissions, few with much discussion, though from
2015:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10388603](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10388603)

Also relevant, the "Philosophy of Computer Science" article at the
Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16451072](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16451072)
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-
science/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/)

~~~
makeset
> Trivium: WJR is the author of "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo
> buffalo".

You're off by a couple of buffalo :)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo)

~~~
dredmorbius
I've always tried to avoid buffaloing buffalo.

------
tndl
>Ch 2. What is philosophy

Man, he's leaving no stone unturned.

------
crimsonalucard
Philosophy is advertised as something more fundamental than logic itself. Here
it's advertised as something more fundamental than computer science.

But when I read stuff like this I question the veracity of it all. The very
first section seems to be talking about "science" and "computer science" then
it goes on to talk about ethics... Is this really legit? I mean what "science"
means and what "computer science" means is more of a english language problem
then some fundamental aspect of reality... and ethics are just rules that
govern human behavior and the human condition... does this really need to be
merged with the formal fundamentals of computer science? It's like saying
english literature is part of quantum theory or that morality is intrinsic to
classical mechanics.

I'm curious but as an outsider looking in... it looks like a load of BS. Any
top tier theoretical mathematicians or hardcore scientists have anything to
say about philosophy? Or even the philosophy behind computer science? Is it
worth reading this stuff?

~~~
j1vms
Philosophy is the study of knowledge, including the idea of "knowing", and
furthermore even being in a position to know (existence). It is indeed more
fundamental, as it was probably the discipline in which first useful
breakthroughs were made in human thought. Though we would do well not to
confuse being more fundamental, with being more important (as far as people &
society today are concerned).

In a way, it is the fuzzy wiring that underlies most other disciplines, that
you need to poke around in when you run into longstanding, or seemingly
intractable problems in what you're trying to do above. See for example:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20905801](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20905801)

~~~
crimsonalucard
Computer science itself doesn't have ethics. It's like saying arithmetic has
ethics. My question is why is philosophy including it as if it's part of the
framework of computer science. It makes philosophy seem illegitimate.

~~~
finolex1
Computer Science is pretty different from arithmetic (heck, that's a
philosophical question in itself). Looking at the table of contents, he
doesn't seem to be saying algorithms or data structures have ethics - but that
a lot of recent developments in Computer Science can help us reckon with
issues of what constitutes intelligence or autonomy, and the ethical
ramifications that follow.

~~~
crimsonalucard
That's what makes it all seem illegitimate. The ethical ramifications of AI
are a human quality outside of the computer science itself.

Computer science as a discipline like arithmetic has nothing to do with the
human condition, it is just an aspect of logic. If philosophy purports to be
more fundamental than logic or computer science why does it go on to talk
about liberal arts topics of things like ethics or religion? It seems jumbled
and disorganized and lacking of formal rigor.

Think about it. To use the analogy of arithmetic, the more fundamental theory
is number theory. It dives into a lower level description of arithmetic. But
then suddenly it starts talking about ethics and the moral implications of
using arithmetic on human society. Is this social studies or formal logic?

~~~
mcguire
The practice of computer science is a human activity and therefore involves
ethics. Further, the argument that computer science is ethically neutral is
itself a question of philosophical ethics.

~~~
crimsonalucard
The practice of mathematics also is a human activity and therefore has ethics
when viewed from the context of human activity. However, math itself is not
ethical. It just is.

The same is said of computer science. What you do on the job as a software
engineer, is more engineering and applying math and programming in a human
activity. The disciplines themselves, algebra, category theory, topology,
calculus, number theory, computer science are all devoid of ethics or morals.

Combining ethics and science is like combining church and state.

~~~
abdullahkhalids
is there any non-human math you are aware of? The categorization of
mathematics into certain disciplines (algebra/topology/etc) is also a human
choice. As is the choice to separate the philosophy class from the calculus
class. They are all human choices, which reflect our outlook to life. I choose
not to demarcate mathematics and philosophy because as far as I know only
humans do mathematics, and every choice they make in that doing, teaching or
researching has implications, even if tiny, for the good or bad that happens
to this world.

~~~
crimsonalucard
All math is non-human.

What does the quantity one have to do with a human? Nothing. The only thing
you are doing is giving it a name. "One" The categorization of mathematics is
just nomenclature. We choose the name and categorizations of something that
already exists independent of the human experience.

------
conscion
Is there a print copy of this book purchasable anywhere? Reading PDFs of this
length is difficult for me.

~~~
dredmorbius
Not AFAIU, though:

\- Reading this on a tablet works pretty well (9" or larger). I find
PocketBook Reader is quite good, FBReader is another option. Both are far more
functional than a basic PDF reader.

\- You could print the text directly and bind it at virtually any print shop.

------
Davidbrcz
I was expecting this without looking at the website :
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-
science/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/)

Seems to be more relevant.

~~~
dredmorbius
The Stanford reference is more concise. Rappaport's is far more inclusive and
comprehensive.

Both are highly worthwhile.

------
Bromskloss
What section of it should I read to get an idea of what, according to the
author, "philosophy of computer science" is?

~~~
dredmorbius
Start with the ToC, as suggested. It provides an excellent overview and
framework.

The first four chapters (and preface) largely answer this question. Though of
course, the answer is what the entire book is about.

------
dredmorbius
FYI, Rappaport suggests another book on this topic, somewhat shorter:

 _Computational Artifacts: Towards a Philosophy of Computer Science_ , by
Raymond Turner.

[https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783662555644#](https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783662555644#)

------
oceanghost
Thank you, Mr. Rapaport! Gonna break out my new Xerox Phaser tomorrow and
print this out for reading. I am super excited as I've become quite bored with
Computer Science since reading Zen and the Art and connecting with it deeply.

When you publish, I'll be happy to purchase a copy.

------
ProfHewitt
This is an excellent summary of older work but it needs to be updated with
modern type theory. See the following:

[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3418003](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3418003)

------
MatthiasP
TL;DR; The major question in the philosophy of computer science, according to
Smith, is: What is computation?

------
iamvik
looks fun, but man, do you really need to make subsubsubsubsubsections?

------
jacobwilliamroy
Whoah. He goes for 360+ pages before even touching the titular subject of his
book. I would have preferred a simple glossary of terms, or maybe just release
3 books instead of one? It sounds like he wants to teach this book in schools,
but as a student, I could easily imagine the professor telling me to buy this
whole book just so we can study the last 400 pages. I think it's a waste of
money when the professor asks me to buy an entire book because he or she just
wants to look at a few chapters.

~~~
esfandia
But his book is freely available as a PDF.

