Philosophical Vegan Forum

@Jebus, I seriously want an answer, how can you think that computer science is about as scientific as political science? Studying political science doesn't make you be able to do anything more in real life than if you haven't studied it, while studying computer science makes you able to, well, build software.

I mean, @Jebus, do you think something like this seminar I've recently written exists in political science? Do you think political scientists can make such controlled experiments, and formulate reasonable hypotheses that can be falsified with experiments that can be done in under an hour? Can you really control how people behave in those experiments to remotely the same level you can control how computers behave in computer science experiments?

I'll repost something I've posted in the Soft-Science-Hard-Science thread, maybe it is more appropriate to post it here.

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?p=46405#p46405 wrote:Anyway, I've recently written a seminar about implementing QuickSort in my own programming language, about measuring how good my compiler is at optimizing compared to free C compilers (not very good), and, most importantly, about trying to predict how many comparisons QuickSort will do based on the known number of elements in the array and the known sortedness of the array. Would you then call that hard science? I was doing controlled experiments and measurements, and I plotted those measurements onto graphs, however, I wasn't actually calculating p-values, I used informal methods (as is seen on the graph...). The most advanced mathematics I appealed to was basic calculus (determining the signs of the derivatives from the graph).

I don't it's a problem here that my seminar is written in Croatian, Google Translate does a lot better job translating from Croatian to English than it does from English to Croatian. And, @Red, do you think my seminar about computer science is also "trash nobody cares about"? If so, why?

teo123 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 9:55 am I don't it's a problem here that my seminar is written in Croatian, Google Translate does a lot better job translating from Croatian to English than it does from English to Croatian. And, @Red, do you think my seminar about computer science is also "trash nobody cares about"? If so, why?

Teo, just stop. I know you're trying to be clever in getting a response out of me by posting in another thread, especially given your history of being deliberately provocative for a response. I told you don't respond to me, which also means don't try being sneaky about it.

And to answer your question, yes.

Red wrote:And to answer your question, yes.

So, my interpretation of the names of places in Croatia is trash because it's about something very few people know or care about, and because it's a supposedly soft science. My seminar about predicting how many comparisons a naively implemented QuickSort will do in linear time is trash because of... what exactly?

That's right, @Red, as soon as I ask you a question that makes your "philosophy of science" look incoherent (as it probably is), you run away. And you are using some non-existing forum rules to justify that.

teo123 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:15 am That's right, @Red, as soon as I ask you a question that makes your "philosophy of science" look incoherent (as it probably is), you run away. And you are using some non-existing forum rules to justify that.

LOL (no, seriously, I did laugh out loud after reading this).
Teo, you've reached a new low with this level of provocativeness (it's become so childish at this point). I thought it was clear that I was making a point in not responding to you (especially considering I TOLD you in the other thread not to respond to me, and how I know you're trying to continue that conversation here). I'm not using any forum rules to justify anything, it's just I don't want to be sucked into a timewasting debate where you don't learn a thing (which has happened like 10 times already across the entire forum).

You know, there have been times where you haven't responded to me, but I don't feel the need to be a pompous asshole about it. Why? Since I have a tad more humility and respect than you (plus have better things to do with my time).

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to tell you this. You won't change, and will continue to try getting a response out of me, not so you can try learning anything in a debate, but so you can bolster about how smart you think you are. I want you to learn that debates aren't as much about trying to prove why you're right and how others are wrong, but to ultimately see what is right even if it goes against what you want to be true. It seems as though you think debates are better described by the former.

Remember what I said Teo; You aren't that smart.

Red wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:30 am

teo123 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 2:15 am That's right, @Red, as soon as I ask you a question that makes your "philosophy of science" look incoherent (as it probably is), you run away. And you are using some non-existing forum rules to justify that.

LOL (no, seriously, I did laugh out loud after reading this).
Teo, you've reached a new low with this level of provocativeness (it's become so childish at this point). I thought it was clear that I was making a point in not responding to you (especially considering I TOLD you in the other thread not to respond to me, and how I know you're trying to continue that conversation here). I'm not using any forum rules to justify anything, it's just I don't want to be sucked into a timewasting debate where you don't learn a thing (which has happened like 10 times already across the entire forum).

You know, there have been times where you haven't responded to me, but I don't feel the need to be a pompous asshole about it. Why? Since I have a tad more humility and respect than you (plus have better things to do with my time).

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to tell you this. You won't change, and will continue to try getting a response out of me, not so you can try learning anything in a debate, but so you can bolster about how smart you think you are. I want you to learn that debates aren't as much about trying to prove why you're right and how others are wrong, but to ultimately see what is right even if it goes against what you want to be true. It seems as though you think debates are better described by the former.

Remember what I said Teo; You aren't that smart.

Yeah, because talking about how fields you know next to nothing about aren't real sciences makes you smart...

If there is study of observations with testing and drawing conclusions I can see there is science then. Most people conclude things that are without science behind those. Even those coming to the Philosophical Vegan Forum site come to it for discussion of philosophies, not things known from science.

Depends on what you take "science" to be. Computer science is the study of a formal system. It is not an empirical science. It is not based on experiments, nor on observations. But it is based on reproducible evidence. You make axioms about computation, and then you use logical deduction and formal reasoning to develop theories and proofs from those axioms. In this sense computer science is like mathematics.

Mathematics and computer science are both formal sciences. They both use formal reasoning and not imperative observation as basis for evidence. But I think that the difference between them is that mathematics is more about describing what things are and computer science is more about how to do things.
For example, in mathematics the concept of addition is defined and properties about it like it being commutative and associative and so on are proved. But one never learns how to actually do addition. One never takes 2 numbers and adds them. One just learns properties about addition in general.
But in computer science the way to actually do addition is figured out. In computer science one can actually add 2 numbers. Computer science tells us how to go from the general concept of addition in our mind to an actual instance of the process in reality.

"Science" IMO has become a bit of a vague word, lately. It seems to mean different things to different people nowadays. Maybe it would be best to first ask your friend for a definition of "science" or "scientist" first.