On Feb 28, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Theodore H. Smith wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 2008, at 10:42 AM, Theodore H. Smith wrote:
>>
>>> And why do they feel the need to call it computer science? Do they
>>> call chemistry "chemistry science"? It's like they feel software-
>>> development isn't good enough, so they have to tack on a little tag
>>> to
>>> make it sound more impressive.
>>
>> I actually know the answer to that from a Georgia Tech physics
>> professor that I had in 1977. When you take a Physics or Chemistry
>> course, you're learning Physics or Chemistry. When you take a
>> CompSci course, you are learning the "Science" of Computers. The
>> premise is to provide a broad range of knowledge that can be applied
>> to computers in general. Granted, most modern courses should be
>> named "Windows Science" because of their Windows-centric tilt.
>> Because computers are changing on an almost hourly basis, to learn a
>> "Computer" would be quite limiting. So, while you were obviously
>> being cynical, there really IS a reason for the course name.
>
>
> That makes no sense... To learn a "chemical" would take forever too...
>
> It's simply because they wanted to make their field sound legitimate,
> because they felt insecure about their status as "real scientists".
>
> Honestly... if it's not a real science then just be happy with it.
>
> I suppose computer science, or software-development anyhow, is a
> science, when it comes to theories, and things proven with logic.
> After all, all science is based on logic.
Not quite, I think; science is based on observation and experiment.
Charles Yeomans
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|