Shaun Bagley wrote:
The following sentences (see below) put this statement in context
somewhat but as someone who has had the good fortune of observing both
human and non-human interactions with computer technology over decades
(yes, I represent an eon in internet terms—but seriously I go back to
pre-historic, sorry, pre-web times) there is an empirical challenge in
the use of the term /computer scientists./ Computers are a creation of
humans, an operating system with applications, who have created a
machine which, as wonderful as it is, is but a figment and a fragment of
human intellect. And if you got that, you are not a computer, just using
one...You may also have read Linda Truss’s publications.
For some reason your email was delayed by about a week.
To my knowledge, this argument was largely resolved back in the late 50s.
"Computer science" isn't the study _of_ computers - using a computer
doesn't make you a computer scientist any more than using a calculator
makes you a mathematician. Personally, I prefer the term "informatics"
(e.g. "bioinformatics".)
The obligatory Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Science
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Paul Taylor Veni, vidi, tici -
I came, I saw, I ticked.
*******************************************************************************************************
This is the email announcement and discussion list of the Canberra
Ornithologists Group.
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>
List-Subscribe: <>
List archive: <http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/canberrabirds>
List manager: David McDonald, email
<>
|
