COMP6044   Just another ECS Blogs weblog

For someone with a legal background, mathematics as a discipline is not necessarily one that is easy to relate to.

On a granular level, it can be said that lawyers and mathematicians would seem to have a lot in common. They both rely on laws, proof and evidence and seem to spend a lot of their time finding definitive (or as close as possible) answers to problems.

However, on a conceptual level, there are many differences and trying to familiarise myself with mathematics has been an interesting task.

Mathematics tends to be divided into four areas of study; quantity, structure, space, and change (i.e. arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and analysis). There are also subdivisions dedicated to exploring links between mathematics and other field such as logic, set theory (foundations), the empirical mathematics of the various sciences (applied mathematics) and more recently the rigorous study of uncertainty.

Applied Mathematics

This area is essentially mathematical science with a specialised knowledge and deals with mathematical models typically used in science, engineering, business and industry. It uses these models to solve practical problems.

In the past, practical applications have motivated the development of mathematical theories, which then became the subject of study in pure mathematics, where mathematics is developed primarily for its own sake.

Although, applied mathematics has not traditionally been applied to the area of law or politics. However, it has been argued by J Wales Jr that:

‘Mathematics, as it is generally taught, justifies itself on the basis of its applicability in the worldly circumstances which are the focus of the application at hand. Such a belief does not encourage the student to investigate the limitations of mathematics to the situation being examined’

That we should:

‘Let mathematics be, just as other disciplines are, the pursuit of ways of seeing, the pursuit of visions. We should teach our students to look for mathematical analogies, to delight in them when they find them, to stretch them and test them’

Because the applications of mathematics:

‘are in fact analogies which often appear as metaphors’.

Therefore, although mathematics may seem an interesting choice in relation to the issue of content on the web, testing the boundaries and limitations of mathematics as a discipline is in fact, what many academics advocate.

References

Jack V. Wales, Jr. ‘Mathematics and Its Application’, From the book ‘Essays in Humanistic Mathematics’ by Alvin M. White

Next post

Optimization ….

Prior to this blog post, I chose Geography and Criminology as my two disciplines to research. However, after much deliberation this week, I have decided to research Sociology instead of Criminology.

My research this week has approached the introductions of Sociology; discovering what Sociology is and how sociology research is carried out, as well as identify topics that demonstrate a link to the Digital Divide. Macionis and Plummer’s introduction of Sociology has been the “text book of the week!”

Sociology is a multi-paradigm discipline that studies the way people “do things” together, typical researchers are either theorists or critics.  Sociology’s main focus involves understanding society; how societies are related, act differently and guide our ways of life. However, it is not about making absolute conclusions, it is providing theoretical suggestions and ideas to think and work with.

The Sociological Life Cycle is summarised by five “P’s”;

• People & Everyday life
• Professional Sociology
• Public and Popular Sociology
• Practitioners and Applied
• Policy and Political

The classical traditional perspectives of sociology and important terminology identified so far include:

• Functionalism
• Conflict Perspective
• Macro/Micro-level orientation
• Symbolic Interaction (interactionism)
• Positivism
• Humanistic
• Postmodern Methodology
• Social Construction of reality
• Social Stratification

Sociology has seen the development of new topics of research including Globalisation, Culture of the Internet, Inequalities, Policy and Economy.

Over the past two centuries, there have been major changes and transformations identified by Sociologists. Human relationships change as societies change, forming new social bonds. It is believed that social organisation have dissolved, with technological discoveries being the main reason for it. The “Cyber Revolution” has emerged with the use of digital technologies, spread of information technologies and new ways of communications. This has formulated several terms including Digital Age, Cyborg Age, Info Age, Network Society and Virtual Age. Societies are increasingly interconnected, causing a “Shrinking World” and widespread of global culture. Critics believe nations exploit, colonise and raid other cultures, with matters are worsening. These new transformations and changes have affected rules and behaviours in different societies; changing routines, different ways of communicating and allowing technology to influence our every day lives. This is described as Sociocultural Evolution. Five society types affected by technology include:

• Hunting and gathering
• Horticultural and pastoral
• Agrarian
• Industrial and
• Post Industrial

The matter of technological determinism was also discussed. This is concerned with that fact technology should not determine societies. It’s limits should be identified and known to ensure humans so they do not rely on them. It is also putting more pressure on the physical environment. This links to Marx’s beliefs on Capitalism; it has produced alienation, humans were machines a long time ago, technology has simply taken over in the modern day, which has resulted with even less opportunities for human companionship and interaction. Marx also states a Social Confict theory; clashes between classes that have arisen from the different ways society produces material goods.

This Sociology book points out different ways to measure societies. 1st, 2nd and 3rd world are well known, however there is also a 4th world, used to describe the poorest of poorest areas or the poorest areas within wealthier countries. Economic-based groupings are also analysed; high/middle/low incomes and Newly Industrialised Countries (NIC’s). The Human Development Index aims to demonstrate figures based on 3 issues; life expectancy, knowledge and education, and decent standards of living. This links to Global Poverty and Inequality. There are four categories of people most vulnerable to poverty; children, refugees/the displaces, the ageing and women, and technology is believed to be a key factor for affecting poverty. Social Networks have expanded beyond groups and organisations, and geographical areas does not necessarily define your community or personal interactions. Technology played a major role in shaping this type of network with use of online communities and mobile, all leading to a faster pace of living.

Two theory types used to solute the issue of global poverty and inequality were stated; Development (understand the shaping and experience of world inequalities) and Normative (Specifying the world we want to live in, it has a moral and evaluative take and includes target goals.)

Finally, the topic of the unequal world was introduced, in particular the factors that affect social structures; (not just social and economic); gender, ethnicity, sexuality, age and disability, types of inequality; health, life and death, existential inequalities, and resource inequalities, and different forms of stratification; social exclusion and marginalisation, exploitation, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, violence. Ideology, habitualisation, subjugation and coercion/violence have impacted social inequality systems. The Kuznets Curve was also described; it demonstrates the technological progression. At first it sharply increases but then moderates the intensity of social stratification as societies become more equal.

To conclude, this text book so far (only half way through!!!) has provided a great insight to Sociology. There are several major points to take from this that show how sociologists would tackle the Digital Divide, including connections with Geographers.

Reference: J., Macionis, J., Plummer, 2012, Sociology A Global Introduction, 5th ed, Essex: Pearson

This post will look at the basic questions in philosophy, the different types of philosophy, how different philosophical approaches view the world, and the different philosophical research paradigms.

What is Philosophy?
The common perception of a philosopher is generally an incorrect one. Theories have emerged that understand a philosopher to be someone with ‘airy fairy’ qualities or someone who has a glass half full approach to life. This is however quite far away from the actual definition of a philosopher. A philosopher is someone who is searching for a definite answer to his or her questions. A true philosopher aims to solve the problems of the universe and therefore philosophy can be defined as ‘seeing to explain the universe and nature’; in other words, it is a general study of a range of problems from the trivial to the extreme.

Philosophical Views of the World
There exists a wide range of types of philosophy and philosophical views, but the simplest way the two different ways of representing the world from a philosophical way is:

1. The world explained via scientific method
2. The world explained via unscientific method

Philosophical Explanations of the World – Matter & Spirit
When attempting to solve problems of the universe, philosophers defined two different ways of explaining ‘things’.

1. Matter – material things which we can touch
2. Spirit – things we cannot touch, i.e thoughts/ideas

The Fundamental Problem/Question of Philosophy
The relation between matter and spirit is one that has puzzled many philosophers and depending on their philosophical beliefs, the answer must be presented either as:

1. The scientific answer
2. The unscientific answer

Broad Types of Philosophy:
Materialist Philosophy: This is not as the word materialist might suggest, a philosophy that is only concerned with the material problems in life, but rather a philosophy which strives to explain the problems of the universe through science.
Idealist Philosophy: This is the opposite and contradicting philosophical approach to materialism. This is the unscientific approach to conceptualising the world, where all of the answers are given in relation to the spirit as opposed to matter.
Agnosticism: We are incapable of knowing whether the ‘answer’ or ‘explanation’ of the worlds problems is scientific of unscientific, we are in fact ‘incapable of knowing’.

Sub Types of Philosophy
Epistemology: this is the study of knowledge. It is concerned with both the scope and nature of knowledge; asking ‘what is knowledge?’ ‘How can we acquire it?’.
Positivism: traditional scientific approach to gaining knowledge, through repeated observation.
Realism: reality exists independently to the human brain, in other words what our senses show us to be true, is true.
Interpretivism: Research should be based upon different people rather than different objects, and those people’s role as social actors must be taken into account.
Ontological: the study of ‘being’ broken down into objectivism and subjectivism. Interestingly Ontology in the philosophical sense deals with categorising beings and an ontology in computer science in relation to the semantic web deals with categorising data to form a shared vocabulary reminiscent of a dictionary/thesaurus construct.
Objectivism: Social entities exist outside social actors concerned with their existence.
Subjectivism: Social actors perceptions and actors, create social phenomena.
Pragmatism: The question determines the strategy. Depending on the research question asked, different philosophical approaches may be more suitable than others.
Axiology: The ethical part of philosophy, where your values impact your research.

Philosophical Research Paradigms:
Functionalist: Rational explanation of why something is occurring, with recommendations of how to fix it.
Interpretive: Seeking to understand the underlying meanings behind what is occurring.
Radical: Studying the effect of the current structure.
Humanist: Looking at the social phenomena that has been created by the social actors.

In relation to using this information to look at philosophical approaches to gender representation on the web I will be using both general types of philosophy, although probably erring more on the side of the idealist. Theoretically it would be possible to set up scientific studies that could partially look at gender equality on the web, but with such a tenuous issue it’s hard to give it a solely scientific answer; after all even if it were possible to fully survey web usage between the two genders or look at gender representation on blog sites, journal sites etc, that still wouldn’t give a decent picture. In order to properly look at this issue we need to look at the more spiritual side, taking into account the actual ideas represented on the web. For instance a blog might hold equal postings from men and women, but that’s not to say it means that they are being equally represented, one gender might be slating the other or making sexist comments. Or there might be more posts from one gender than another on an academic site, but that might not be because one gender is being misrepresented, merely that more of one gender is currently qualified in the subject of the site.

Narrowing down my approach, I feel a pragmatic approach is the most sensible one to choose; therefore depending on the sub question posed within my essay, I will look to answer it with the appropriate philosophical approach that lends itself to the question. I.e in relation to gender equality representation purely in terms of numbers,  I will probably use a positivistic approach to analyse this question; whereas looking to categorise areas of gender representation, an ontological approach would seem more sensible.

These philosophical musings will begin the philosophical part of my essay, which can then nicely lead onto the equality questions posed in my previous philosophy based post.

[1] Georges Politzer and Barbara L Morris. Elementary principles of philosophy, volume 469. International Publishers, 1976.
[2] http://wps.pearsoned.co.uk/ema_uk_he_saunders_resmethbus_4/51/13274/3398341.cw/

This week I spent some time looking at the already existing interdisciplinary subjects for Geography and Biology. Below is a rundown of the most important ones I could find.

Biogeography

Biogeography is the study of the global distribution of species over time. This is unsurprisingly useless to my question so I stopped looking at it almost straight away.

Geobiology

Geobiology is likewise completely unrelated to the kind of problems I am concerned with, being a study of the interaction between plants, animals, the planet and the atmosphere over time.

Environmental Science

Environmental Science is the big brother of any Biology and Geography related fields. It integrates all physical and biological sciences, but in doing so goes too far for my needs. For starters it includes Physics which is unrelated to the interdisciplinary overlap I’m looking at.

Sensor Networks

The study of Sensor Networks is more a product of the field, but interesting and useful none the less. They behave in a similar way whether they are being used over a geographical area or over a person’s body. Some of the technical aspects are different, but the underlying challenges are the same. The study of Sensor Networks also includes Computer Science, which is the most relevant part and why I included it here.

Geo-techno-biology?

Considering these I had a lightbulb realisation that I’m probably looking for the wrong thing. My problem isn’t going to be considered by a fusion of Geography and Biology, in fact it needs to include Computer Science as well because the subject is so technically focussed on the computer/user connection.

So it turns out I’m not doing a two way fusion of disciplines, it’s a messy threesome.

The best way I can see to unite the three disciplines would be by connecting Computer Science to Biology and Computer Science to Geography then drawing comparisons between the two relationships to draw out the commonalities.

I also tried typing ‘Biology Geography “Computer Science”’ in to Google just for kicks. It showed that there is one principle which is common to each of the three disciplines (even specifically to UI design) which is Contiguity, which is just another way of saying that things are close together. Some disciplines go further and say that sometimes people will make the assumption that these close things are related in a meaningful way. Sadly this is more an interesting aside than anything earth shattering.

This week I decided to go away from just looking at books and try to find some real world views. Using the magic of Facebook I asked a few friends who study/studied Biology and Geography for their views on user interfaces. In my case it was fairly informal and I don’t know yet if I’ll use them, but it has been a useful experience to see how other people think about the question.

The experiment was a partial success, the main problem was communicating the idea of what a user interface is and then the dual-topic nature of the exercise itself.

My advice for anyone else who wants to try it is to make a short document which contains the question, definitions of any complicated terms, the reasoning behind the exercise, and some clear, concise questions for them to answer.

In short: “It’s what I say it is”

The idea of looking at this discipline is to see if the study of Literary Theory offers up insights as to better ways to structure hypertexts, thus improving the richness of the overall Web experience. I am not thinking directly of hypertext literature so much as hypertext in general. Might we improve the way we describe and learn things, by borrowing from literature? At distance, this seems a reasonable hypothesis.

What is Literary Theory?

Beyond describing it as the study of literature this has proved a somewhat slippery definition – references are inconsistent. The best consensus is that it encompasses the body of ideas and methods used in practical reading of literature. However, most references go on to then ask is “What is literature?” and consensus begins to weaken and rapidly arrives at a conundrum akin to defining Art, and Duchamp’s “Urinal”[1]. Thus what is defined as Literature, or there terms used to define it actually tends to vary slightly depending on which school of Literary Theory being studied. It is perhaps a reasonable working definition to say that today, most Literary Theory schools of thought see Literature in terms of ‘creative’ or ‘imaginative’ writing as opposed to all forms of writing. This is worth noting, in light of the opening paragraph, as much of Hypertext is not expressly literary.

It is also clear that Literary Theory and Sociology are closely intertwined, with literary schools linked to many of the genres within Sociology. Literary Theory doesn’t see it’s purpose to explain Literature to a general audience, as I’d supposed before investigating the discipline. Rather it provides methodologies for introspection, these varying depending on the school of though being applied. This makes for difficult study as such genres are broadly interpretive and introspective and I have a cognitive impairment that makes ‘normal’ introspection extremely difficult. So if my perspective of the discipline seems to take an external viewpoint it is by necessity rather than choice.

How did Literary Theory Arise?

Whilst literature has long been studied, the formal discipline of Literary Theory is a comparatively modern field and mainly based in the Western Cultural tradition (I’ll return to a dissenting view later). Modern Literary Theory’s roots appear in the 18C. At this time, Literature was was taken to mean many forms of writing valued by society (or the more privileged classes thereof); poems, essays, letters, history and philosophy. Note that these forms include both the  literal and fictional. During the 18C gradually the concept of Literature coalesced as a notion of whether writing conformed to a standard of etiquette, of being ‘polite letters’. As such, the literal forms began to be left aside as Literature began to take a more explicitly idealogical form. In turn, Literature thus became an expression of its exponent’s ideology. As access to literature and the opportunity to discuss it passed from an elite to a larger middle class, so the field broadened and fragmented.

During the 19C that modern (Western) notions of Literature develop. Come the Romantic period, Literature becomes essentially a synonym for ‘imaginative’ writing. The field is still broad but many forms of literal writing are now excluded. In this same period, an burgeoning middle class (and some educated working class) seize on this imaginative writing as a way of expressing their aspirations and political views. It also offers an alternative to the newly popular empiricism. Literature moves from belles lettres to being a conduit for radical expression. It may be argued that Literature and ideology were no longer usefully regarded as separates. This duality seems to underpin modern Literary Theory. The discipline should not be seen as a disembodied set of ideas, rather it is embodied as a force within institutions and schools of thought.

Approaching the discipline in search of its raison d’être, but lacking the power of introspection, Literary Theory’s aggressive need for inwardly focussed self-justification offers little clear purpose. This is hard to process – so much intellect in harness, but to what useful end? It has proved difficult, with the time/depth available to study to draw a line from Literary Theory to actual advances. Instead, the focus seems to be a retrospective approach of justifying–within it’s own lexicon–existing works, like a parent parent daring one to say that the daubing attached to the fridge is anything but impressive.

Do not rush to suppose this suggests I see nothing of merit in Literary Theory. Far from it, it cannot be the case that so much intellectual effort hasn’t but adding to the sum of human knowledge. But exactly what is so far evades me at this (depth of) level of study. It also shows a disinterest by Literary Theorist for engaging with a wider audience, which again is worthy of note in the context of the Web and its aspirations for openness.

Origins of Literary Theory – a dissenting view

It seems mainstream Literary Theory doesn’t like to acknowledge older study of literature, or indeed non Western/English language literature. The reasons for this distain I’ve found hard to trace as practitioners care not to elaborate. Hogan[2], holds a mirror to this pointing out pre-existing strands of literary scholarship in a number of other parts of the worlds and which predate Literary Theory’s supposed start date. He also cites other (Western) papers that look beyond the narrow confines of Western literature, indicating his position is not singular even if in a minority.

The mainstream’s insular scope for Literary Theory seems an odd position to take, in scholarly terms. However, the deeply introspective nature of the subject may mean they simply don’t feel the need to justify the position. In essence the “it is because I say it is” approach to definition. I’m still researching this aspect, as its exclusionary nature sits at odds with the Web’s inclusive nature and thus pertinent to the central thrust of this exercise. Assuming for a moment that notions of Western Literature may help structure better hypertext, how inclusive is that of a readership that extends beyond Europe and North America?

What now?

This article, now written, feels remarkably light in content and unreflecting of the scope of my reading for it. But it has revealed that the term ‘Literary Theory ‘doesn’t describe a coherent whole, but rather it exists as an umbrella term for an ecosystem of differing and often opposed schools of thought.  Therefore the next step is to review the major schools of thought within Literary Theory.

Sources

Primary book sources for this period of study are listed below. What’s harder to show is the disproportionately large amount of online research investigating these start points: listing places that didn’t offer new light on the topic seems self-serving.

What I have learned is that Literary Theory doesn’t reward the skeptic. Like a religion, it’s essentially accessible only to those who believe – another experience I’m ill equipped to understand.

Primary Sources:

• Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford : Blackwell, 1996.
• Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1997

Footnotes:

1. Duchamp’s Fountain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchamp%27s_Fountain (accessed 26 Oct  2013)
2. Hogan, Patrick Colm. Ethnocentrism and the very idea of literary theory. College Literature v23, n1 (Feb, 1996)

What is law?

Law seems to be a little harder to pin down than Anthropology (for me anyway).

According to Wikipedia (most of the information in this post will be from Wikipedia…), ‘law’ is a term that does not have a universally accepted definition but is generally a system of rules and guidelines enforced through social institutions. The law shapes politics, economics and society in various ways, and this varies from country to country. Law can raise important issues concerning equality, fairness and justice – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proposes that ‘All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law’.

The settlement of the law is divided into two main areas; Criminal law and Civil law.

Criminal law: Deals with crime (duh) and conduct that is considered harmful to social order. Guilty parties may be imprisoned and/or fined. Regulates social conduct and forbids threatening, harming or otherwise endangering the health, safety and moral welfare of people.

Civil law: Unlike criminal law, civil law focuses on dispute resolution and victim compensation rather than punishment. Deals with the resolution of lawsuits (disputes) between individuals or organisations.

Under civil law, the following specialties, among others, exist:

Contract law: A contract is an agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. Contract law varies greatly from one jurisdiction to another, including differences in common law compared to civil law.

Property law: Regulates the transfer and title of personal property and real property.

Trust law: Applies to assets held for investment and financial security.

Tort law: Deals with compensation if property is harmed.

Constitutional law: Provides a framework for the creation of law, the protection of human rights and the election of political representatives.

Administrative law: Used to review the decisions of government agencies.

International law: Governs affairs between sovereign states.

At this point I skipped straight to legal theory and the philosophy of law, which sounds more like what I should be interested in. The philosophy of law is known as ‘jurisprudence’. Those studying jurisprudence seek to obtain a deeper understanding of the nature of law, legal systems and legal institutions. According to Wikipedia, jurisprudence can be broken down into categories or schools of thought.

Contemporary philosophy of law addresses problems in two rough groups:

–       Problems internal to law and legal systems as such.

–       Problems of law as a particular social institution as it relates to the larger political and social situation in which it exists.

Answers to these questions come from four primary schools of thought:

Natural Law: Sees that there are rational objective limits to the power of legislative rulers. Foundations of law are accessible through human reason. It is from laws of nature that human-created laws gain their force.

Legal Positivism: Contrasts Natural Law. Believes there is no connection between law and morality. The force of law comes from social facts (but Legal Positivists differ in opinion on what these facts are).

Legal Realism: Argues that the real world practice of law is what determines what law is – the force of law comes from legislators, judges and executives.

Critical Legal Studies: Developed in 1970’s. Argues that the law is contradictory and is best analysed as an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group.

Wikipedia tells me to look at the work of Ronald Dworkin, who advocates a constructivist theory of jurisprudence that produces a middle path between natural law theories and positive theories. I’ll investigate whether or not this is relevant with some reading.

Hopefully that is more or less a basic outline of law… I think Property Law will be the most relevant when investigating the rights people have in their digital afterlives. I should also look into work already done surrounding Internet Law.

Next steps:

Deeper investigation in Jurisprudence, Property Law and the law online/Internet Law.

Read about Dworkin.

References:

Wikipedia…

This week I decided to adapt last weeks post to a more extended version:

A brief history:

Aristotle was perhaps amongst the first who drew attention to the way that the mind processes information. He was interested in the reasons why an argument could be accepted as valid by those who were both for and against it. His theory of syllogistic reasoning is a form of deductive reasoning that suggests the validity of the argument could be explained by its symbolic form rather than its content.[10]

Many years later Freud conceptualized the mind as an iceberg which was composed of three levels: The conscious mind (the top of iceberg which is out of water), The preconscious mind (the bit that submerges into the water but yet remains visible) and The unconscious mind (the bit that is hidden under the water).He believed that the unconscious (containing Id and Superego) is the biggest part of the mind which is responsible for many unexplained hidden emotions that the individual is not aware of, their existence and their consecutive behaviours which can therefore be seen as implicit or automatic.[3][5]

During the early 20th century Santiago Ramón y Cajal was studying the behaviour of micro structures of the neurons in the brain. Some of his observations led to what is today the foundation of modern neuroscience.[3]

At around the same time some scientists, including B.F Skinner, believed that in order to understand how the mind works they should focus on observing human behaviour rather than the hidden processes that happen in the mind. This led to the birth of behaviourism.[6]

In the mid 20th century Alan Turing saw the human brain as an “unorganized machine” that learned through experience. [1] He imagined a virtual device (the Turing machine) that could translate any humanly computable mathematical problem into a sequence of simple operations [2][4]

A few years later in 1959 Chomsky published a paper in which he proved that behavioural approaches were not valid in relation to the structure of English sentences.[1]

Later on various questions about the human mind and the way it processes information led to the birth of cognitive science.  An example of this is the thought processes that happen in the mind of a jazz musician when he/she is improvising (in some cases without any formal music theory knowledge).How do they know how to put the specific notes and phrases in the right order whilst making infinite set of improvisations in the chords that remain loyal to a finite set of formal structures?[10]

What is Cognitive Science?

In Cognitive Science the mind/brain, (including its characteristics and behaviour), is considered an object of scientific study (as opposed to behaviourism).

Although this field has been dramatically improved in recent years yet it remains an immature field as there are still many debates that remain unsolved. One of which is about its domain of research and its commitments. For example, should it also study the non-human intelligence such as animals or computers? Or should it also be investigating other phenomena of the human mind such as emotions? [7]

As a result the research framework and the questions about it have to be conceptualized in common sense terms. There seems to be substantial agreement amongst cognitive scientists that the research framework should include exploring human intelligence and cognition and its capacities (this includes a machine with information processing capacities). How do these capacities differ amongst different adults, genders, cultures, neurologically impaired patients, and other subsets of the human population. [7] This can be performed by redeveloping the mind as a machine that performs computational and representational activities. [8]

In 1950 to 1980 cognitive scientists used to see the mind/brain as a general-purpose conventional machine. [7] This was changed during 1980’s as notions were raised that the mind/brain is a connectionist device and the fact that the cognitive mind is not only a computational device, but it’s also a representational one. [7][8][11][12][13][14]

As we realized from the history of cognitive science, this field has a multidisciplinary nature as it can be described in three levels: [7]

1. Psychology (assumed as common sense)

2. Information processing (assumed as the non neural cognitive sciences like semantic and syntactic level (pylyshin 1984) or knowledge level and symbolic level (Newell 1986))

3. The neural level (assumed as neurosciences)

Scientists from different scientific perspectives such as computer science, artificial intelligence, psychology, neuroscience, linguistics and philosophy are using cognitive science in their fields to try answering many questions about the human mind.

Cognitive psychologists have achieved many breakthroughs in the areas of education and learning by studying the process of reading or learning. Applied cognitive science has been used by scientists to diagnose and treat learning difficulties, speech impairments, and aiding therapies for stroke victims. As exciting as applied cognitive science can be, it also raises many moral and political challenges for cognitive scientists in this field as the technology in some cases can be misused. [10] “For example results in computer vision might be used to design either a visual prosthesis for the blind or the control system of a cruise missile carrying a nuclear warhead.”[10] Therefore cognitive science is also interrelated with the studying of history, social science and humanities.[10]

As there has always been an analogy between the human mind and the computer mind, cognitive science and computer science are interrelated and on many occasions have played the role of a catalyst in the process of improvements and developments of one another but yet in some cases this can be misleading. [10]

Is cognitive science a normal science?

There have been disagreements amongst scientists in the past about whether cognitive science comes with a single coherent research paradigm or if what we have is just a variety of cognitive sciences. As cognitive science is still in the process of development, scientists are not able to come up with descriptions as final products. Kessle, with an empiricist view of science, claims that we must turn to the views of Kuhn.[7] Others suggested that cognitive science is antithetical to Kuhn’s views [9] and therefore Kuhn’s notion of paradigm (which some claimed is inconsistent and too open) cannot be applied to cognitive science. Also the fact that the framework of shared commitments cannot easily be rejected within cognitive science makes scientific revolutions quite unlikely to happen. [7] Some took a step further to claim that even other units for analyzing science like the logical positivist notion of theory and Larry Laudan’s notion of a research tradition could also not be applied to cognitive science.[7]

References :

1. Dr. C. George Boeree, Psychology:  The Cognitive Movement,http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/ai.html[Accessed 21 Oct 2013]

2. Anon,http://www.alanturing.net/[Accessed 30 Oct 2013]

3. Anon,The birth of cognitive science,Society for the philosophy of Information http://www.socphilinfo.org/node/166[Accessed 31 Oct 2013]

4. Houdé. O, Kayser D., Koenig O., Proust J., Rastier F. (2003) Dictionary of Cognitive Science: Neuroscience, Psychology, Artificial Intelligence, Linguistics, and Philosophy. Publisher: Routledge [Accessed 24 Oct 2013]

5.Cherry K., The Conscious and Unconscious Mind: The Structure of the Mind According to Freud, http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/consciousuncon.htm[Accessed 31 Oct 2013]

6. David w. Green & others.( 1996) Cognitive Science: An Introduction ,Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

7. Eckardt B.C.( 1955), What is cognitive science? ,First MIT Press.

8. Stillings N.A, Weisler S.E., Chase C.H.,  Feinstein M.H., Garfield J.L., Rissland E.L.( 1995),Cognitive Science :An Introduction, Second Edition.

9. Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy, Thomas Kuhn, First published Fri Aug 13, 2004; substantive revision Thu Aug 11, 2011[Accessed 22 Oct 2013]

10. Stillings N.A., Weisler S.E.,Chase C.H.,Feinstein M.H., Garfield J.L. and Rissland E.L. (1987),Cognitive Science: An Introduction – Second Edition.(1-17)

11.Fodor J.(1975), The Language of Thought, Harvard University Press.

12. Newell, A. (1994).Unified Theories of Cognition, Harvard University Press; Reprint edition.

13. Haugeland J. (1981) , Mind Design. Cambridge, Mass.MIT Press

14. Pylyshyn Z.,(1984)Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science ,MIT Press.

When looking into the field of Computer Science, there seem to be many different views on the definition of the discipline. Some authors simply state a definition of the field, others say there is not one coherent definition, and some even argue that Computer Science cannot be considered as proper science. This week I will show some of these different views and herewith try to get an initial understanding of the field of Computer Science.

I will start with considering an author that has written a book to give (Computer Science) students “an overview of what Computer Science is”. Brookshear gives a definition of the discipline in the first line of his book:

“Computer Science is the discipline that seeks to build a scientific foundation for such topics as computer design, computer programming, information processing, algorithmic solutions of problems, and the algorithmic process itself”

(Brookshear, 2012: p. 16)

This definition seems a bit difficult to grasp, because Brookshear explains the field by giving examples of topics that it seeks to build a scientific foundation for. Still, an individual without previous technical knowledge does not necessarily understand what these topics encompass. Tedre says: “it is impossible to characterize the whole academic field of computing by making a list of topics with which all researchers would unanimously agree”. Tedre therefore argues that Brookshear’s definition has little “informational value” (Tedre, 2006: p. 349).

Tedre does not give his own definition of Computer Science, but explains that there have been many debates in the past about what Computer Science is about or should become. He adds that there are still is no complete consensus on the identity of Computer Science these days. The discipline has been diversifying radically since the rise of electronic digital computing, Tedre argues (Tedre, 2006: p. 161-162). This fact may also contribute to the inability in the scholarly world to come to a consensus about a solid definition for the field.

Tedre demonstrates this inability for example by the different opinions of Brooks and Hartmanis. Brooks argued in 1996 that Computer Science is a synthetic, engineering discipline. According to him, “anything which has to call itself a science, isn’t”. Also, he argues that computers are being seen more as tools and not as proper ends. This is led by “the emergence of new topic areas between computer science and many other disciplines” (Brooks in Tedre, 2006: p. 341-342). Hartmanis also thinks that Computer Science differs from other sciences, but he argues that it “is laying the foundations and developing the research paradigms and scientific methods for the exploration of the world of information and intellectual processes that are not directly governed by physical laws” (Hartmanis in Tedre, 2006: p. 346).  Tedre also quotes Minsky, whom in 1979 argued that Computer Science is hard to see as thing in itself, because it has so many relationships with other disciplines (Minsky in Tedre, 2006: p. 347).

Next to authors who simply state definitions of Computer Science or deny that it can be seen as a discipline, some authors explain why Computer Science can be seen as a discipline. The example that I pick here is coming from Dodig-Crnkovic. She argues that Computer Science is based on Logic and Mathematics. Herewith, she argues that there is one important difference, which qualifies Computer Science as a discipline just as well as the previously mentioned ones:

“The important difference is that the computer (the physical object that is directly related to the theory) is not a focus of investigation (not even in the sense of being the cause of certain algorithm proceeding in certain way) but it is rather theory materialized, a tool always capable of changing in order to accommodate even more powerful theoretical concepts.”

 (Dodig-Crnkovic, 2002: p. 7)

According to Dodig-Crnkovic Computer Science thus never has to reach an impasse, because of the ever evolving technology. Herewith, it can be considered as a scientific discipline.

Whereas I now looked at the different ways to define Computer Science, I will look into the different approaches in Computer Science next week.

Sources

Brookshear, J. Glenn. Computer Science. An Overview. Eleventh Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2012.

Dodig-Crnkovic, Gordana. Scientific Methods in Computer Science. Mälardalen University, 2002.

Tedre, Matti. The Development of Computer Science. A Sociocultural Perspective. University of Joensuu, 2006.