Reading 01: Should our software be in The Louvre?
I’m a computer scientist (or at the very least a computer science student expecting to be one soon). But what else does that make me? Am I an engineer? An artist? A scientist? How should we classify computer science?
At Notre Dame, computer science is part of the College of Engineering. So at least nominally, the university seems to consider computer science to be an engineering discipline. But should it be? Should computer science instead be in the College of Arts & Letters? Should it be in the College of Science?
Perhaps not, but computer science is not purely a discipline of engineering. Compared to the other majors in the College of Engineering, computer science seems different. I agree with the article from The Atlantic in the sense that computer science doesn’t fit with the ideas of classical engineering. As Ian Bogost states in the article, “ Traditional engineers are regulated, certified, and subject to apprenticeship and continuing education”. Most of engineering is this way, but computer science is not. Computer scientists need not pursue certification in order to use their craft, and software development is not regulated like bridge building within civil engineering. By these criteria, computer science is certainly not part of engineering.
But, if it’s not just an engineering discipline, what else is it? Perhaps it’s a science. Science, formally defined by Wikipedia, is “a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe”. By this relatively vague definition, computer science seems like it might fit partially within this category, but it may be a stretch. Modern science is split into the three categories of natural sciences, social sciences, and formal sciences. Theoretical computing is considered to be part of formal sciences, with mathematics and logic. This seems somewhat fitting that the theoretical aspects of computer science could be classified as part of science. There are aspects of experimentation and the pursuit of knowledge discovery within computing theory that align fairly well with other fields of science. However, the comparison here still does seem to be lacking quite substantially. There’s much more to computer science than just theory. For example, software development definitely seems out of place being categorized as science.
Maybe instead computer science should be classified as part of the arts. I really enjoyed the comparison in the readings between hackers and painters from the Paul Graham blog. In computer science, like in the arts, there’s an emphasis on the creative process. A sculptor makes sculptures and a programmer makes programs. In both cases, the artist uses their skills and knowledge to create a product to share with others. Additionally, in both cases, the final product, whether it be a painting or Snapchat, is observed and experienced by many people, eliciting feelings and emotions. Although the classification of computer science as an art resonates with me as the creative aspects of the field are by far my favorite, this classification seems to be lacking somewhat as well. Frankly, we probably shouldn’t hang a Java implementation of Conway’s Game of Life in any art galleries, even if it’s particularly clever.
Ultimately, it’s difficult to classify computer science into any single category between science, engineering, and art. The truth is that it’s some of all three categories and is probably better served on it’s own. Computer science shouldn’t be forced into one of these three groups as it doesn’t really belong. It’s essentially like trying to force a square into a round hole.
Instead, it’s important that computer scientists and the general public are open about the classification of computer science and realize that it’s a different field completely.
