realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: realbasic-nug Digest, Vol 47, Issue 66

To: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
Subject: Re: realbasic-nug Digest, Vol 47, Issue 66
From: "Theodore H. Smith" <delete at elfdata dot com>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:42:34 +0000
Delivered-to: listarchive at realsoftware dot com
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <mailman dot 10010 dot 1204242186 dot 9216 dot realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
On 28 Feb 2008, at 23:43, realbasic-nug-request at lists dot realsoftware dot 
com  
wrote:

> From: Charles Yeomans <charles at declareSub dot com>
> Subject: Re: [OT] Why "Computer Science" - was Re: Packed Encoding
>       Rules
> To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
> Message-ID: <14DDDBE2-2C08-4FF3-866F-DC8780433596 at declareSub dot com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>
> 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.


Not really... It's based on logic. Observations can be wrong,  
misleading, broken, falsified...

--
http://elfdata.com/plugin/
"String processing, done right"


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>