[SIGCIS-Members] Fwd: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014
AJOHNSON at mailbox.sc.edu
Fri Nov 28 14:59:54 PST 2014
Yes this is a field in philosophy. There is a Blackwell guide to the subject and two international societies devoted to it--one focusing more on ethics (INSEIT) and the other on more epistemic/cognitive science/philosophy of mind sorts of issues (IACAP). There is a biannual (I think) information ethics conference called CEPE. You'll also find philosophers of computing and information in the Society for Philosophy and Technology (SPT). People in these areas regularly teach both broad spectrum and narrowly focus classes on philosophy of computing. Exchange between philosophers and historians of computing has been scarce but I think would benefit both groups.
On Nov 28, 2014, at 4:57 PM, "Dag Spicer" <dspicer at computerhistory.org> wrote:
> Thought this might of interest… is anyone teaching the “philosophy of computing?” Should they? Does computing (outside of AI) involve philosophy?
> Dag Spicer
> Senior Curator
> Computer History Museum
> Editorial Board, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing
> 1401 North Shoreline Boulevard
> Mountain View, CA 94043-1311
> Tel: +1 650 810 1035
> Fax: +1 650 810 1055
> Twitter: @ComputerHistory
> Begin forwarded message:
> From: IHPST <ihpst.info at utoronto.ca<mailto:ihpst.info at utoronto.ca>>
> Subject: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014
> Date: November 28, 2014 at 1:02:59 PM PST
> To: IHPST <ihpst.info at utoronto.ca<mailto:ihpst.info at utoronto.ca>>
> IHPST NEWSLETTER
> November 28, 2014
> IHPST NEWS
> Wednesday December 10, 4:00 p.m., Location – Victoria College, 2nd floor, Room 213
> “Why did HPS Die?” Hakob Barseghyan, Assistant Professor, IHPST, University of Toronto
> When HPS was born in the 1960s, its main rationale was that we could study the actual workings of science in order to use that knowledge to answer some key philosophical questions concerning science, such as “what makes science rational?”, “what is the demarcation between science and non-science?”, “what makes one theory better than another?” and ultimately “what is the logic of scientific change?”. Kuhn and other founding fathers of HPS held that in order to get a better understanding of PS we must refer to HS. Lakatos’s famous dictum that “philosophy of science without history of science is empty; history of science without philosophy of science is blind” was not just his own view; it was the guiding principle that was in the foundation of the original HPS.
> Yet, what we observe nowadays is historians and philosophers pursuing their separate projects with essentially very little overlap. If we call things by their names, “HPS” has become a mere umbrella term these days.
> So why did the original HPS die and how can it be revived?
> If you have an accessibility or accommodation need for these events, please e-mail
> Denise Horsley directly at denise.horsley at utoronto.ca<mailto:denise.horsley at utoronto.ca> to make appropriate arrangements.
> * * * * * * * * **
> OTHER NEWS
> Stay current with the U of T community:
> The Albert Memo:
> U of T News:
> * * * * * * * * * * *
> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
More information about the Members