View
3.159
Download
4
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
I argue why I think that Computer Science (or better: Informatics) is a "natural science", in the same sense that physics, astronomy, biology, psychology and sociology are a natural science: they study a part of the world around us. In that same sense, I think Informatics studies a part of the world around us. For a similar talk (including script), but more aimed at a Semantic Web audience in particular, see http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/ISWC2011Keynote/ (or http://videolectures.net/iswc2011_van_harmelen_universal/ for a video registration)
Citation preview
Informatics is a
natural science
Frank van HarmelenDept. of “Computer Science”
VU University A’damCreative Commons License: allowed to share & remix,but must attribute & non-commercial
Health Warning:
This is going to be a pretentious talk
Philosophical confessioncoming up:
What I believe about scientific knowledge
Computer “Science” ?
"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes”
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra
just like laws aboutthe physical universe?
alchemy
Some examples of“laws” from the information universe
(and sometimes: from the SIKS part of that universe)
Zipf’s law
USE
USE
RE-USE
U = 1-R
Some proposed laws from the SIKS part
of the Information Universe
Factual knowledgeis a graph
Terminological knowledgeis a hierarchy
|Terminology| << |Facts|
Dataset Schemaclosure
Full closure
Ratio
Linked Life Data 332sec 1h5min 10FactForge 89sec 2h45min 100
The role of the human observer?
Many more laws, about:• Abstraction, Information Hiding, Layering• Simulation, Universality, Virtualisation• Tractability, Computability
Are these the only examples?
Is this a weird position?
"Informatics is the study of the structure, behaviour, and interactions
of natural and engineered computational systems."
Three of the truly fundamental questions of Science are: "What is matter?", "What is life?" and "What is mind?".
Is this even controversial?
"Underlying our approach to this subject is our conviction that computer science is not a science”
Mathematics provides a framework for dealing precisely with notions of "what is."
Computation provides a framework for dealing preciselywith notions of "how to"
Is this new?
Bill Rapaport’s page with a map of 45(!) years of debate
Is this even important?It changes our “ontology” of CS!
• A computer is a result
• A programming language is a result
• An algorithm is a result
• A computer is a result A computer is an experimental instrument
• A programming language is a resultA programming language is an experiment
• An algorithm is a resultAn algorithms is an observation
Is this even important?
• It changes how PC’s and editorial boards think• It changes how you teach your courses• It changes how you train your PhD’s• It changes how you judge a PhD thesis• It changes how other fields perceive “CS”• It changes how the general public perceive “CS”
Theory?What theory?
Recommended