Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Minds and Machines
Erschienen in: Minds and Machines 2/2007

01.07.2007 | Original Paper

Three Paradigms of Computer Science

verfasst von: Amnon H. Eden

Erschienen in: Minds and Machines | Ausgabe 2/2007

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We examine the philosophical disputes among computer scientists concerning methodological, ontological, and epistemological questions: Is computer science a branch of mathematics, an engineering discipline, or a natural science? Should knowledge about the behaviour of programs proceed deductively or empirically? Are computer programs on a par with mathematical objects, with mere data, or with mental processes? We conclude that distinct positions taken in regard to these questions emanate from distinct sets of received beliefs or paradigms within the discipline:
  • The rationalist paradigm, which was common among theoretical computer scientists, defines computer science as a branch of mathematics, treats programs on a par with mathematical objects, and seeks certain, a priori knowledge about their ‘correctness’ by means of deductive reasoning.
  • The technocratic paradigm, promulgated mainly by software engineers and has come to dominate much of the discipline, defines computer science as an engineering discipline, treats programs as mere data, and seeks probable, a posteriori knowledge about their reliability empirically using testing suites.
  • The scientific paradigm, prevalent in the branches of artificial intelligence, defines computer science as a natural (empirical) science, takes programs to be entities on a par with mental processes, and seeks a priori and a posteriori knowledge about them by combining formal deduction and scientific experimentation.
We demonstrate evidence corroborating the tenets of the scientific paradigm, in particular the claim that program-processes are on a par with mental processes. We conclude with a discussion in the influence that the technocratic paradigm has been having over computer science.
Vorheriger Artikel The Philosophy of Computer Science: Introduction to the Special Issue
Nächster Artikel Abstraction in Computer Science

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
To which Wegner also refers as ‘cultures’ or ‘disciplines’ interchangeably.
 
2
The “Denning report” (Denning et al. 1989) authored by the task force which was commissioned to investigate “the core of computer science” also lists three “paradigms” of the discipline: theory/mathematics, abstraction/science, and design/engineering. According to this report, these paradigms are “cultural styles by which we approach our work”. They conclude however that “in computing the three processes are so intricately intertwined that it is irrational to say that any one is fundamental”.
 
3
For example, the statement ‘programs are abstract’ shall be taken to assert that ‘program-scripts and program-processes are abstract’.
 
4
Also known as machine code or object code.
 
5
The program adds 3 to the product of two numbers, encoded in the 8086 microprocessor assembly language (Adapted from Georick et al. 1997).
 
6
For example, consider the difficulty of spotting and correcting errors in the program in Table 1.
 
7
The program adds 3 to the product of two numbers, encoded here in the syntax of Scheme (Abelson and Sussman 1996), a dialect of Lisp
 
8
A statement most widely attributed to Dijkstra.
 
9
We follow Colburn (2000) in taking a priori knowledge about a program to be knowledge that is prior to experience with it, namely knowledge emanating from analyzing the program-script, and a posteriori knowledge to be knowledge following from experience with observed phenomena, namely knowledge concerning a given set of specific program-processes generated from a given script.
 
10
Delivered, according to Mahoney (2002), in 1985 during his Inaugural Lecture as Professor of Computation at Oxford.
 
11
Which were later accompanied by algorithms and abstract state machines.
 
12
Dijkstra (1988) offered an explanationto how this ‘fact’ escaped mathematicians and programmers alike: “Programs were so much longer formulae than [mathematics] was used to that [many] did not even recognize them as such.
 
13
Bill Rapaport (2007) notes that such a position has interesting consequences on the question whether programs can be copyrighted or patented.
 
14
\({\mathbf{tech\cdot noc\cdot ra\cdot cy}}\,\, n.\) A government or social system controlled by technicians, especially scientists and technical experts. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Ed., 2000.)
 
15
These events have led to the seminal NATO conference held in the fall of 1968 (Naur and Randell 1969) concerning the trouble that the software industry had been experiencing in producing reliable computing systems. In the introduction to the conference’s report, Robert McClure (2001) argues that although the term ‘software engineering’ was not in general use at that time, its adoption for the titles of these conferences was deliberately provocative and played a major role in gaining general acceptance for the term.
 
16
At most, lip-service is paid to the role of verification in ‘safety-critical software systems’.
 
17
For example, the Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 version of the Linux operating system (Debian 2007) is the product of contributions made by thousands of individuals that are entirely unrelated except in their attempt to improve it.
 
18
One petabyte (1PB) is 1,024 terabytes or 250 bytes.
 
19
We ignore, for the moment, difficulties arising from concurrency and the possibility of suspending the execution of program-processes.
 
20
That is, the computational process by the central processing unit depends on the consumption of energy; if suspended, program-processes cease to exist.
 
21
Turing forecast named the year 2000 as a target. During that year, Jim Moor conducted an experiment which refuted Turing’s prediction, but he hastens to add: “Of course, eventually, 50 years from now or 500 years from now, an unrestricted Turing test might be passed routinely by some computers. If so, our jobs as philosophers would just be beginning”. (Moor 2000)
 
22
Hoare (2006) has recently conceded that “Because of its effective combination of pure knowledge and applied invention, Computer Science can reasonably be classified as a branch of Engineering Science.”
 
23
To which Bertrand Meyer (1997) satirical critique offers valuable insights.
 
Literatur
Abran, A., & Moore, J. W. (Eds.) (2004). Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge—SWEBOK (2004 ed.) Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society.
Abelson, H., Sussman, J.J. (1996). Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. (2nd ed.) Cambridge: MIT Press.
Aho, A. V., Sethi, R., & Ullman, J. D. (1986). Compilers: Principles, techniques, and tools. Reading: Addison Wesley.
Bedau, M. A. (2004). Artificial life. In: L. Floridi (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to philosophy of computing and information. Malden: Blackwell.
Berry, H., Pérez, D. G., & Temam, O. (2005). Chaos in computer performance. Nonlinear Sciences arXiv:nlin.AO/0506030.
Brent, R., & Bruck, J. (2006). Can computers help to explain biology? Nature, 440, 416–417.CrossRef
Bundy, A. (2005). What kind of field is AI? In: D. Partridge, & Y. Wilks (Eds.), The foundations of artificial intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.
Carr, N. G. (2004). Does IT matter? Information technology and the corrosion of competitive advantage. Harvard Business School Press.
Cohn, A. (1989). The notion of proof in hardware verification. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 5(2), 127–139.MATHCrossRef
Colburn, T. R. (2000). Philosophy and computer science. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Copeland, B.J. (2006). Are computer programs natural kinds? Personal correspondence.
Devaney, R. L. (1989). Introduction to chaotic dynamical systems (2nd ed.). Redwood: Benjamin-Cummings Publishing.MATH
DeMillo, R. A., Lipton, R. J., & Perlis, A. J. (1979). Social processes and proofs of theorems and programs. Communications of the ACM, 22(5), 271–280.CrossRef
Denning, P. J. (1989). A debate on teaching computing science. Communications of the ACM, 32(12), 1397–1414.CrossRef
Denning, P. J., Comer, D. E., Gries, D., Mulder, M. C., Tucker, A., Turner, A. J., & Young, P. R. (1989). Computing as a discipline. Communication of the ACM, 32(1), 9–23.CrossRef
Dijkstra, E.W. (1988) On the cruelty of really teaching computing science. Unpublished manuscript EWD 1036.
Dybå, T., Kampenesa, V. B., & Sjøberg, D. I. K. (2006) A systematic review of statistical power in software engineering experiments. Information and Software Technology, 48(8), 745–755.CrossRef
Eden, A. H., Hirshfeld, Y., & Kazman, R. (2006) Abstraction classes in software design. IEE Software, 153(4), 163–182. London, UK: The Institution of Engineering and Technology.
Einstein, A. (1934). Mein Weltbild. Amsterdam: Querido Verlag.
Fasli, M. (2007). Agent technology for E-commerce. London: Wiley.
Fetzer, J. H. (1993). Program verification. In: J. Belzer, A. G. Holzman, A. Kent, & J. G. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of computer science and technology (Vol. 28, Supplement 13). New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. M. (1995). Design patterns: Elements of reusable object-oriented software. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Georick, W., Hoffmann, U., Langmaack, & H. (1997). Rigorous compiler implementation correctness: How to prove the real thing correct. Proc. Intl. Workshop Current Trends in Applied Formal Method. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1641, pp. 122–136. London, UK: Springer-Verlag.
Gibbs, W. W. (1994) Software’s chronic crisis. Scientific American, 271(3), 86–95.CrossRef
Hall, A. (1990). Seven myths of formal methods. IEEE Software, 7(5), 11–19.CrossRef
Hoare, C. A. R. (1969). An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM, 12(10), 576–583MATHCrossRef
Hoare, C. A. R. (1986). The mathematics of programming: an inaugural lecture delivered before the Univ. of Oxford on Oct. 17, 1985. New York: Oxford University Press
IEEE Std 610.12-1990 (1990). IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terms. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society.
Knuth, D. E. (1968). The art of computer programming, Vol. I: Fundamental algorithms. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Loux, M. J. (1998). Nominalism. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (electronic Ver. 1.0). London and New York: Routledge.
Mahoney, M. S. (2002). Software as science—Science as software. In: U. Hashagen, R. Keil-Slawik, & A. Norberg (Eds.), History of computing: software issues. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Mainzer, K. (2004). System: an introduction to systems science. In: L. Floridi (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to philosophy of computing and information. Malden: Blackwell.
McCarthy, J. (1960). Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by machine, Part I. Communications of the ACM, 3(4), 184–195.MATHCrossRefMathSciNet
McCarthy, J. (1962). Towards a mathematical science of computation. Proceedings of IFIP.
McLaughlin, B. (2004). Computationalism, connectionism, and the philosophy of mind. In: L. Floridi (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to philosophy of computing and information. Malden: Blackwell.
Milner, R. (2007). Memories of Gilles Kahn, and the informatic future. Transcript of speech before Colloquium in memory of Gilles Kahn, INRIA Research Institute.
Naur, P., & Randell, B. (Eds.) (1969). Software Engineering: Report of a conference sponsored by the NATO Science Committee (7–11 Oct. 1968), Garmisch, Germany. Brussels, Scientific Affairs Division, NATO.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Completer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19(3), 113–126.CrossRefMathSciNet
Olson, E. T. (1997). The ontological basis of strong artificial life. Artificial Life, 3(1), 29–39.
Ophir, S. (2006). Computer science and commercial forces: Can computer science be considered science? In Proc. 4th European conf. Computing And Philosophy—ECAP, Trondheim, Norway.
Parnas, D. L. (1972). On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM, 15(12), 1053–1058.CrossRef
Perry, D. E., & Wolf, A. L. (1992). Foundation for the study of software architecture. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 17(4), 40–52.CrossRef
Pierce, J. R. (1968). Keynote address. Conference on Academic and Related Research Programs in Computing Science (5–8 June 1967). Reprinted in: A. Finerman (Ed.), University Education in Computing Science. New York: Academic Press.
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge, London.
Putnam, H. (1975). Minds and machines. In: Philosophical papers, Vol. 2: Mind, Language, and reality. pp. 362–385. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Natural kinds. In: Ontological reality and other essays. Columbia University Press.
Rapaport, W. J. (2007). Personal correspondence.
Rapaport, W. J. (2005). Philosophy of computer science: An introductory course. Teaching Philosophy, 28(4), 319–341.MathSciNet
Raymond, E. S. (1996). The New Hacker’s Dictionary (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (1st ed.) Boston: MIT Press.
Sommerville, I. (2006). Software engineering (8th ed.) Reading: Addison Wesley.
Stack, G. S. (1998). Materialism. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (electronic Ver. 1.0). London and New York: Routledge.
Steinhart, E. (2003). Supermachines and superminds. Minds and Machines, 13(1), 155–186.MATHCrossRef
Stoy, J. E. (1977). Denotational semantics: The Scott-Strachey approach to programming language theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Strachey, C. (1973). The varieties of programming language. Tech. Rep. PRG-10 Oxford University Computing Laboratory.
Szyperski, C. A. (2002). Component software—Beyond object-oriented programming (2nd ed.). Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Turing, A. M. (1936). On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem. In Proc. London Math. Soc. Ser., 2, 43(2198). Reprinted in Turing & Copeland (2004).
Turing, A. M., & Copeland, B. J. (Ed.) (2004). The essential Turing: Seminal writings in computing, logic, philosophy, artificial intelligence, and artificial life plus the secrets of Enigma. Oxford, USA: Oxford University Press.
Turner, R. (2005). The foundations of specification. Journal of Logic & Computation, 15(5), 623–663.MATHCrossRef
Turner, R. (2007). Personal correspondence.
Wegner, P. (1976). Research paradigms in computer science. In Proc. 2nd Int’l Conf. Software engineering, San Francisco, CA, pp. 322–330.
Metadaten
Titel
Three Paradigms of Computer Science
verfasst von
Amnon H. Eden
Publikationsdatum
01.07.2007
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Minds and Machines / Ausgabe 2/2007
Print ISSN: 0924-6495
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8641
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-007-9060-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2007

Minds and Machines 2/2007 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Abstraction in Computer Science

Original Paper

Understanding Programming Languages

Introduction

The Philosophy of Computer Science: Introduction to the Special Issue

OriginalPaper

Quantum Algorithms: Philosophical Lessons

OriginalPaper

Physical Computation: How General are Gandy’s Principles for Mechanisms?

Original Paper

Computers, Justification, and Mathematical Knowledge

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise