Fwd: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014
Thought this might of interest… is anyone teaching the “philosophy of computing?” Should they? Does computing (outside of AI) involve philosophy? Dag -- 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@utoronto.ca<mailto:ihpst.info@utoronto.ca>> Subject: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014 Date: November 28, 2014 at 1:02:59 PM PST To: IHPST <ihpst.info@utoronto.ca<mailto:ihpst.info@utoronto.ca>> IHPST NEWSLETTER November 28, 2014 IHPST NEWS COLLOQUIUM 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@utoronto.ca<mailto:denise.horsley@utoronto.ca> to make appropriate arrangements. * * * * * * * * ** OTHER NEWS Stay current with the U of T community: The Albert Memo: http://www.vic.utoronto.ca/News___Events/Albert.htm U of T News: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/ * * * * * * * * * * * ---
Dag, 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. Ann On Nov 28, 2014, at 4:57 PM, "Dag Spicer" <dspicer@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
-- 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@utoronto.ca<mailto:ihpst.info@utoronto.ca>> Subject: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014 Date: November 28, 2014 at 1:02:59 PM PST To: IHPST <ihpst.info@utoronto.ca<mailto:ihpst.info@utoronto.ca>>
IHPST NEWSLETTER November 28, 2014
IHPST NEWS
COLLOQUIUM
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@utoronto.ca<mailto:denise.horsley@utoronto.ca> to make appropriate arrangements.
* * * * * * * * **
OTHER NEWS
Stay current with the U of T community:
The Albert Memo: http://www.vic.utoronto.ca/News___Events/Albert.htm
U of T News: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/
* * * * * * * * * * *
---
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
As of August the SEP has a great entry <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/> by Raymond Turner on the nascent "philosophy of computer science" in anglophone/analytic circles. There were a few informal discussions about historicizing terms like "information" and "computation" at SIGCIS, topics on which there is a large philosophical literature, often emerging from philosophy of mind or cognitive science. Lav Varshney's paper on block diagrams in information theory and Ekaterina Babintseva's paper on some aspects of the cybernetics milieu's thinking were both exemplary contributions to the history of ideas current among philosophers. My two cents as an outsider: philosophers are ahistorical to a greater degree than historians are unphilosophical re: computing/information. On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:59 PM, JOHNSON, ANN <AJOHNSON@mailbox.sc.edu> wrote:
Dag,
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.
Ann
On Nov 28, 2014, at 4:57 PM, "Dag Spicer" <dspicer@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
-- 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@utoronto.ca<mailto:ihpst.info@utoronto.ca>> Subject: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014 Date: November 28, 2014 at 1:02:59 PM PST To: IHPST <ihpst.info@utoronto.ca<mailto:ihpst.info@utoronto.ca>>
IHPST NEWSLETTER November 28, 2014
IHPST NEWS
COLLOQUIUM
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@utoronto.ca<mailto: denise.horsley@utoronto.ca> to make appropriate arrangements.
* * * * * * * * **
OTHER NEWS
Stay current with the U of T community:
The Albert Memo: http://www.vic.utoronto.ca/News___Events/Albert.htm
U of T News: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/
* * * * * * * * * * *
---
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
This email is relayed from members@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
Also related to "philosophy of computing" is the Society for the Philosophy of Information (SPI): http://socphilinfo.org/ Luciano Floridi (Oxford) has produced a lot of interesting work in this field. The SPI just released a CFP for the Seventh Workshop on the Philosophy of Information on "Conceptual challenges of data in science and technology": http://socphilinfo.org/news/cfp/485-seventh-workshop-philosophy-information-... Andrew ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Westergard" <bjornw@gmail.com> To: "ANN JOHNSON" <AJOHNSON@mailbox.sc.edu> Cc: "members" <members@sigcis.org> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 9:59:17 PM Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Fwd: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014 As of August the SEP has a great entry by Raymond Turner on the nascent "philosophy of computer science" in anglophone/analytic circles. There were a few informal discussions about historicizing terms like "information" and "computation" at SIGCIS, topics on which there is a large philosophical literature, often emerging from philosophy of mind or cognitive science. Lav Varshney's paper on block diagrams in information theory and Ekaterina Babintseva's paper on some aspects of the cybernetics milieu's thinking were both exemplary contributions to the history of ideas current among philosophers. My two cents as an outsider: philosophers are ahistorical to a greater degree than historians are unphilosophical re: computing/information. On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:59 PM, JOHNSON, ANN < AJOHNSON@mailbox.sc.edu > wrote: Dag, 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. Ann On Nov 28, 2014, at 4:57 PM, "Dag Spicer" < dspicer@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
-- 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@utoronto.ca <mailto: ihpst.info@utoronto.ca >> Subject: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014 Date: November 28, 2014 at 1:02:59 PM PST To: IHPST < ihpst.info@utoronto.ca <mailto: ihpst.info@utoronto.ca >>
IHPST NEWSLETTER November 28, 2014
IHPST NEWS
COLLOQUIUM
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@utoronto.ca <mailto: denise.horsley@utoronto.ca > to make appropriate arrangements.
* * * * * * * * **
OTHER NEWS
Stay current with the U of T community:
The Albert Memo: http://www.vic.utoronto.ca/News___Events/Albert.htm
U of T News: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/
* * * * * * * * * * *
---
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
This email is relayed from members@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 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
Dear all, I think that the field of philosophy of computing is certainly much wider than cognitive science and AI and in fact, several fundamentally philosophical questions, such as: * what is a computation * what is the difference between a program and an algorithm * Is computer science a science? * ... are, I think, at the core of (the history of) modern computing. This is also reflected within the philosophy of computing. For instance, there used to be a regular track on the philosophy of computer science (organized by Ray Turner) in the IACAP conference series for a couple of years (this changed when the format of the conference changed) William Rapaport is one important name that comes to my mind with respect to teaching the philosophy of computer science: he wrote a syllabus of over 700 pages on the topic (http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/phics.pdf). I am very much convinced that both historians and philosophers of computing can benefit from an increased interaction and it is for this reason that I was involved in the past few years in the organization of several so-called HaPoC-events, including the bi-annual conference on the history and philosophy of computing (the next one will be held in Pisa and we hope to send out the CfP soon). The idea here is to bring together several communities -- historians and philosophers but also computer scientists, mathematicians, etc -- and stimulate an open discussion accross these communities. See www.hapoc.org for more details. Finally, I would like to mention that since 2013 a commission for the history and philosophy of computing was approved by the general assembly of the DHST (Division for the History of Science and Technology) during the Manchester ICHSTM conference. The next step will be the approval by the DLMPS in 2015, which is the philosophy sister division of DHST. best wishes, Liesbeth. Andrew J Iliadis schreef op 1/12/14 17:19:
Also related to "philosophy of computing" is the Society for the Philosophy of Information (SPI): http://socphilinfo.org/ Luciano Floridi (Oxford) has produced a lot of interesting work in this field. The SPI just released a CFP for the Seventh Workshop on the Philosophy of Information on "Conceptual challenges of data in science and technology": http://socphilinfo.org/news/cfp/485-seventh-workshop-philosophy-information-...
Andrew
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Westergard" <bjornw@gmail.com> To: "ANN JOHNSON" <AJOHNSON@mailbox.sc.edu> Cc: "members" <members@sigcis.org> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 9:59:17 PM Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Fwd: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014
As of August the SEP has a great entry by Raymond Turner on the nascent "philosophy of computer science" in anglophone/analytic circles.
There were a few informal discussions about historicizing terms like "information" and "computation" at SIGCIS, topics on which there is a large philosophical literature, often emerging from philosophy of mind or cognitive science. Lav Varshney's paper on block diagrams in information theory and Ekaterina Babintseva's paper on some aspects of the cybernetics milieu's thinking were both exemplary contributions to the history of ideas current among philosophers. My two cents as an outsider: philosophers are ahistorical to a greater degree than historians are unphilosophical re: computing/information.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:59 PM, JOHNSON, ANN < AJOHNSON@mailbox.sc.edu > wrote:
Dag,
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.
Ann
On Nov 28, 2014, at 4:57 PM, "Dag Spicer" < dspicer@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
-- 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@utoronto.ca <mailto: ihpst.info@utoronto.ca >> Subject: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014 Date: November 28, 2014 at 1:02:59 PM PST To: IHPST < ihpst.info@utoronto.ca <mailto: ihpst.info@utoronto.ca >>
IHPST NEWSLETTER November 28, 2014
IHPST NEWS
COLLOQUIUM
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@utoronto.ca <mailto: denise.horsley@utoronto.ca > to make appropriate arrangements.
* * * * * * * * **
OTHER NEWS
Stay current with the U of T community:
The Albert Memo: http://www.vic.utoronto.ca/News___Events/Albert.htm
U of T News: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/
* * * * * * * * * * *
---
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
This email is relayed from members@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
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
Dear all (from the sidelines), I agree that the history and philosophy of computing belong in close proximity to each other, that both are rich and important fields -- and I'd like to see the usually far too utilitarian digital humanities (at the intersection of computing and the humanities) brought into the discussion. It's the intersecting that makes it valuable here. I particularly like Mike Mahoney's comment that the question "is computer science a science" is actually two questions: "what happens to computing if you call it a science?" and "what do you mean by 'science' if computing is one?" Yours, WM On 02/12/2014 10:23, Liesbeth De Mol wrote:
Dear all,
I think that the field of philosophy of computing is certainly much wider than cognitive science and AI and in fact, several fundamentally philosophical questions, such as:
* what is a computation * what is the difference between a program and an algorithm * Is computer science a science? * ...
are, I think, at the core of (the history of) modern computing. This is also reflected within the philosophy of computing. For instance, there used to be a regular track on the philosophy of computer science (organized by Ray Turner) in the IACAP conference series for a couple of years (this changed when the format of the conference changed)
William Rapaport is one important name that comes to my mind with respect to teaching the philosophy of computer science: he wrote a syllabus of over 700 pages on the topic (http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/phics.pdf).
I am very much convinced that both historians and philosophers of computing can benefit from an increased interaction and it is for this reason that I was involved in the past few years in the organization of several so-called HaPoC-events, including the bi-annual conference on the history and philosophy of computing (the next one will be held in Pisa and we hope to send out the CfP soon). The idea here is to bring together several communities -- historians and philosophers but also computer scientists, mathematicians, etc -- and stimulate an open discussion accross these communities. See www.hapoc.org for more details.
Finally, I would like to mention that since 2013 a commission for the history and philosophy of computing was approved by the general assembly of the DHST (Division for the History of Science and Technology) during the Manchester ICHSTM conference. The next step will be the approval by the DLMPS in 2015, which is the philosophy sister division of DHST.
best wishes, Liesbeth.
Andrew J Iliadis schreef op 1/12/14 17:19:
Also related to "philosophy of computing" is the Society for the Philosophy of Information (SPI): http://socphilinfo.org/ Luciano Floridi (Oxford) has produced a lot of interesting work in this field. The SPI just released a CFP for the Seventh Workshop on the Philosophy of Information on "Conceptual challenges of data in science and technology": http://socphilinfo.org/news/cfp/485-seventh-workshop-philosophy-information-...
Andrew
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Westergard" <bjornw@gmail.com> To: "ANN JOHNSON" <AJOHNSON@mailbox.sc.edu> Cc: "members" <members@sigcis.org> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 9:59:17 PM Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Fwd: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014
As of August the SEP has a great entry by Raymond Turner on the nascent "philosophy of computer science" in anglophone/analytic circles.
There were a few informal discussions about historicizing terms like "information" and "computation" at SIGCIS, topics on which there is a large philosophical literature, often emerging from philosophy of mind or cognitive science. Lav Varshney's paper on block diagrams in information theory and Ekaterina Babintseva's paper on some aspects of the cybernetics milieu's thinking were both exemplary contributions to the history of ideas current among philosophers. My two cents as an outsider: philosophers are ahistorical to a greater degree than historians are unphilosophical re: computing/information.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:59 PM, JOHNSON, ANN < AJOHNSON@mailbox.sc.edu > wrote:
Dag,
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.
Ann
On Nov 28, 2014, at 4:57 PM, "Dag Spicer" < dspicer@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
-- 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@utoronto.ca <mailto: ihpst.info@utoronto.ca >> Subject: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014 Date: November 28, 2014 at 1:02:59 PM PST To: IHPST < ihpst.info@utoronto.ca <mailto: ihpst.info@utoronto.ca >>
IHPST NEWSLETTER November 28, 2014
IHPST NEWS
COLLOQUIUM
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@utoronto.ca <mailto: denise.horsley@utoronto.ca > to make appropriate arrangements.
* * * * * * * * **
OTHER NEWS
Stay current with the U of T community:
The Albert Memo: http://www.vic.utoronto.ca/News___Events/Albert.htm
U of T News: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/
* * * * * * * * * * *
---
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
This email is relayed from members@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
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
-- Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/), Professor, Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London, and Digital Humanities Research Group, University of Western Sydney
Dear all, Willard mentions Digital Humanities (interestingly, "from the sidelines"). To this I would add the rich vein of work in Media Studies -- and associated interdisciplinary subfields like Media Histories and Media Archaeology -- that often take up philosophical questions of/associated with computing and the digital. Actually, I find it puzzling that the relevance of philosophy to histories of computing would be questioned on this list. I suppose I see the answers the question elicits as a kind of referendum on how open and interdisciplinary different venues in the History of Computing field are. As someone working in these media history subfields, I'm of the view that SIGCIS and the field more generally would benefit from a much greater openness to, and engagement with, such cognate areas. Regards, Melanie -- Assoc. Prof. Melanie Swalwell ARC Future Fellow Screen and Media, Flinders University GPO Box 2100 Adelaide SA 5001 Ph: +61 8 8201 2619 278 Humanities Bldg www.flinders.edu.au http://www.flinders.edu.au/people/melanie.swalwell Popular Memory Archive: http://playitagainproject.org Play It Again blog: http://blogs.flinders.edu.au/play-it-again/ Australasian Heritage Software Database: www.ourdigitalheritage.org CRICOS Provider: 00114A This email and any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. -----Original Message----- From: members-bounces@sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Willard McCarty Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2014 9:40 PM To: members@sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Fwd: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014 Dear all (from the sidelines), I agree that the history and philosophy of computing belong in close proximity to each other, that both are rich and important fields -- and I'd like to see the usually far too utilitarian digital humanities (at the intersection of computing and the humanities) brought into the discussion. It's the intersecting that makes it valuable here. I particularly like Mike Mahoney's comment that the question "is computer science a science" is actually two questions: "what happens to computing if you call it a science?" and "what do you mean by 'science' if computing is one?" Yours, WM On 02/12/2014 10:23, Liesbeth De Mol wrote:
Dear all,
I think that the field of philosophy of computing is certainly much wider than cognitive science and AI and in fact, several fundamentally philosophical questions, such as:
* what is a computation * what is the difference between a program and an algorithm * Is computer science a science? * ...
are, I think, at the core of (the history of) modern computing. This is also reflected within the philosophy of computing. For instance, there used to be a regular track on the philosophy of computer science (organized by Ray Turner) in the IACAP conference series for a couple of years (this changed when the format of the conference changed)
William Rapaport is one important name that comes to my mind with respect to teaching the philosophy of computer science: he wrote a syllabus of over 700 pages on the topic (http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/phics.pdf).
I am very much convinced that both historians and philosophers of computing can benefit from an increased interaction and it is for this reason that I was involved in the past few years in the organization of several so-called HaPoC-events, including the bi-annual conference on the history and philosophy of computing (the next one will be held in Pisa and we hope to send out the CfP soon). The idea here is to bring together several communities -- historians and philosophers but also computer scientists, mathematicians, etc -- and stimulate an open discussion accross these communities. See www.hapoc.org for more details.
Finally, I would like to mention that since 2013 a commission for the history and philosophy of computing was approved by the general assembly of the DHST (Division for the History of Science and Technology) during the Manchester ICHSTM conference. The next step will be the approval by the DLMPS in 2015, which is the philosophy sister division of DHST.
best wishes, Liesbeth.
Andrew J Iliadis schreef op 1/12/14 17:19:
Also related to "philosophy of computing" is the Society for the Philosophy of Information (SPI): http://socphilinfo.org/ Luciano Floridi (Oxford) has produced a lot of interesting work in this field. The SPI just released a CFP for the Seventh Workshop on the Philosophy of Information on "Conceptual challenges of data in science and technology": http://socphilinfo.org/news/cfp/485-seventh-workshop-philosophy-infor mation-conceptual-challenges-data-science-and#.VHyNBS-ilPC.twitter
Andrew
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Westergard" <bjornw@gmail.com> To: "ANN JOHNSON" <AJOHNSON@mailbox.sc.edu> Cc: "members" <members@sigcis.org> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 9:59:17 PM Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Fwd: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014
As of August the SEP has a great entry by Raymond Turner on the nascent "philosophy of computer science" in anglophone/analytic circles.
There were a few informal discussions about historicizing terms like "information" and "computation" at SIGCIS, topics on which there is a large philosophical literature, often emerging from philosophy of mind or cognitive science. Lav Varshney's paper on block diagrams in information theory and Ekaterina Babintseva's paper on some aspects of the cybernetics milieu's thinking were both exemplary contributions to the history of ideas current among philosophers. My two cents as an outsider: philosophers are ahistorical to a greater degree than historians are unphilosophical re: computing/information.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:59 PM, JOHNSON, ANN < AJOHNSON@mailbox.sc.edu > wrote:
Dag,
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.
Ann
On Nov 28, 2014, at 4:57 PM, "Dag Spicer" < dspicer@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
-- 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@utoronto.ca <mailto: ihpst.info@utoronto.ca
Subject: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014 Date: November 28, 2014 at 1:02:59 PM PST To: IHPST < ihpst.info@utoronto.ca <mailto: ihpst.info@utoronto.ca
IHPST NEWSLETTER November 28, 2014
IHPST NEWS
COLLOQUIUM
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@utoronto.ca <mailto: denise.horsley@utoronto.ca > to make appropriate arrangements.
* * * * * * * * **
OTHER NEWS
Stay current with the U of T community:
The Albert Memo: http://www.vic.utoronto.ca/News___Events/Albert.htm
U of T News: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/
* * * * * * * * * * *
---
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
This email is relayed from members@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
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
-- Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/), Professor, Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London, and Digital Humanities Research Group, University of Western Sydney _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
Dear Melanie - I think you are making a very important point here. While SIGCISers often complain - with some justification - that others ignore existing scholarship by historians of computing, the fact is that we live on a two-way street. Actually, it’s more like a very busy intersection, where lots of people with diverse training and disciplinary/professional commitments (media studies, media archaeology, journalists, museum professionals, computer scientists, historians in various other subfields, etc.) are researching writing about topics related to computers and history. We often zoom past one another without noticing. In my view, you are absolutely right that SIGCIS and specialists in the history of computing will (and do) benefit from greater openness to and engagement with those areas. Those who attended the recent SIGCIS workshop in Dearborn will recall that this was a central message of the keynote address by Prof. Jen Light. In the other presentations I was able to see, the younger scholars who presented at SIGCIS and SHOT also engaged deeply with a variety of literatures. As always, there are very interesting things going on at the intersections and boundaries. Cheers, Andy On Dec 2, 2014, at 6:54 PM, Melanie Swalwell <melanie.swalwell@flinders.edu.au> wrote:
Dear all,
Willard mentions Digital Humanities (interestingly, "from the sidelines"). To this I would add the rich vein of work in Media Studies -- and associated interdisciplinary subfields like Media Histories and Media Archaeology -- that often take up philosophical questions of/associated with computing and the digital.
Actually, I find it puzzling that the relevance of philosophy to histories of computing would be questioned on this list. I suppose I see the answers the question elicits as a kind of referendum on how open and interdisciplinary different venues in the History of Computing field are. As someone working in these media history subfields, I'm of the view that SIGCIS and the field more generally would benefit from a much greater openness to, and engagement with, such cognate areas.
Regards,
Melanie
-- Assoc. Prof. Melanie Swalwell ARC Future Fellow
Screen and Media, Flinders University GPO Box 2100 Adelaide SA 5001
Ph: +61 8 8201 2619 278 Humanities Bldg www.flinders.edu.au http://www.flinders.edu.au/people/melanie.swalwell
Popular Memory Archive: http://playitagainproject.org Play It Again blog: http://blogs.flinders.edu.au/play-it-again/ Australasian Heritage Software Database: www.ourdigitalheritage.org
CRICOS Provider: 00114A This email and any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
-----Original Message----- From: members-bounces@sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Willard McCarty Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2014 9:40 PM To: members@sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Fwd: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014
Dear all (from the sidelines),
I agree that the history and philosophy of computing belong in close proximity to each other, that both are rich and important fields -- and I'd like to see the usually far too utilitarian digital humanities (at the intersection of computing and the humanities) brought into the discussion. It's the intersecting that makes it valuable here. I particularly like Mike Mahoney's comment that the question "is computer science a science" is actually two questions: "what happens to computing if you call it a science?" and "what do you mean by 'science' if computing is one?"
Yours, WM
On 02/12/2014 10:23, Liesbeth De Mol wrote:
Dear all,
I think that the field of philosophy of computing is certainly much wider than cognitive science and AI and in fact, several fundamentally philosophical questions, such as:
* what is a computation * what is the difference between a program and an algorithm * Is computer science a science? * ...
are, I think, at the core of (the history of) modern computing. This is also reflected within the philosophy of computing. For instance, there used to be a regular track on the philosophy of computer science (organized by Ray Turner) in the IACAP conference series for a couple of years (this changed when the format of the conference changed)
William Rapaport is one important name that comes to my mind with respect to teaching the philosophy of computer science: he wrote a syllabus of over 700 pages on the topic (http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/phics.pdf).
I am very much convinced that both historians and philosophers of computing can benefit from an increased interaction and it is for this reason that I was involved in the past few years in the organization of several so-called HaPoC-events, including the bi-annual conference on the history and philosophy of computing (the next one will be held in Pisa and we hope to send out the CfP soon). The idea here is to bring together several communities -- historians and philosophers but also computer scientists, mathematicians, etc -- and stimulate an open discussion accross these communities. See www.hapoc.org for more details.
Finally, I would like to mention that since 2013 a commission for the history and philosophy of computing was approved by the general assembly of the DHST (Division for the History of Science and Technology) during the Manchester ICHSTM conference. The next step will be the approval by the DLMPS in 2015, which is the philosophy sister division of DHST.
best wishes, Liesbeth.
Andrew J Iliadis schreef op 1/12/14 17:19:
Also related to "philosophy of computing" is the Society for the Philosophy of Information (SPI): http://socphilinfo.org/ Luciano Floridi (Oxford) has produced a lot of interesting work in this field. The SPI just released a CFP for the Seventh Workshop on the Philosophy of Information on "Conceptual challenges of data in science and technology": http://socphilinfo.org/news/cfp/485-seventh-workshop-philosophy-infor mation-conceptual-challenges-data-science-and#.VHyNBS-ilPC.twitter
Andrew
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bjorn Westergard" <bjornw@gmail.com> To: "ANN JOHNSON" <AJOHNSON@mailbox.sc.edu> Cc: "members" <members@sigcis.org> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 9:59:17 PM Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Fwd: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014
As of August the SEP has a great entry by Raymond Turner on the nascent "philosophy of computer science" in anglophone/analytic circles.
There were a few informal discussions about historicizing terms like "information" and "computation" at SIGCIS, topics on which there is a large philosophical literature, often emerging from philosophy of mind or cognitive science. Lav Varshney's paper on block diagrams in information theory and Ekaterina Babintseva's paper on some aspects of the cybernetics milieu's thinking were both exemplary contributions to the history of ideas current among philosophers. My two cents as an outsider: philosophers are ahistorical to a greater degree than historians are unphilosophical re: computing/information.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:59 PM, JOHNSON, ANN < AJOHNSON@mailbox.sc.edu > wrote:
Dag,
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.
Ann
On Nov 28, 2014, at 4:57 PM, "Dag Spicer" < dspicer@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
-- 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@utoronto.ca <mailto: ihpst.info@utoronto.ca
Subject: IHPST NEWSLETTER: November 28, 2014 Date: November 28, 2014 at 1:02:59 PM PST To: IHPST < ihpst.info@utoronto.ca <mailto: ihpst.info@utoronto.ca
IHPST NEWSLETTER November 28, 2014
IHPST NEWS
COLLOQUIUM
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@utoronto.ca <mailto: denise.horsley@utoronto.ca > to make appropriate arrangements.
* * * * * * * * **
OTHER NEWS
Stay current with the U of T community:
The Albert Memo: http://www.vic.utoronto.ca/News___Events/Albert.htm
U of T News: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/
* * * * * * * * * * *
---
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
This email is relayed from members@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
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
-- Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/), Professor, Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London, and Digital Humanities Research Group, University of Western Sydney _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew L. Russell, Ph.D. Director, Program in Science & Technology Studies Associate Professor, History College of Arts & Letters Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, New Jersey 07030 t. 201-216-5400 || f. 201-216-8245 arussell@stevens.edu || @RussellProf www.stevens.edu/cal/sts || www.arussell.org Open Standards and the Digital Age: History, Ideology, and Networks (Now available from Cambridge University Press and Amazon.com)
On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:09 AM, Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk<mailto:willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>> wrote: Dear all (from the sidelines), I agree that the history and philosophy of computing belong in close proximity to each other, that both are rich and important fields -- and I'd like to see the usually far too utilitarian digital humanities (at the intersection of computing and the humanities) brought into the discussion. It's the intersecting that makes it valuable here. I particularly like Mike Mahoney's comment that the question "is computer science a science" is actually two questions: "what happens to computing if you call it a science?" and "what do you mean by 'science' if computing is one?” This is one response to these two questions: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2601381.2601391 -p Yours, WM Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick<http://utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick> Blog: creative-automata.com<http://creative-automata.com>
On Dec 2, 2014, at 7:43 PM, Fishwick, Paul <pxf130430@utdallas.edu> wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:09 AM, Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk> wrote:
Dear all (from the sidelines),
I agree that the history and philosophy of computing belong in close proximity to each other, that both are rich and important fields -- and I'd like to see the usually far too utilitarian digital humanities (at the intersection of computing and the humanities) brought into the discussion. It's the intersecting that makes it valuable here. I particularly like Mike Mahoney's comment that the question "is computer science a science" is actually two questions: "what happens to computing if you call it a science?" and "what do you mean by 'science' if computing is one?”
This is one response to these two questions:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2601381.2601391
-p
Yours, WM
Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick Blog: creative-automata.com
Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick Blog: creative-automata.com
I think the question of the digital humanities as a discipline is critical here, and agree the question of "what is the science" in "computer science" needs to be asked. I have recently started identifying more often as a cultural historian of new media/computers. Previously, I identified with the digital humanities more, and I still identify with it it some degree. As I'v understood it, I think the digital humanities more or less consists of three groups. One, individuals interested in a humanities oriented approach to the "digital," such as questions of access, race, gender, etc. Two, individuals interested in using computational techniques in humanities research. Three, individuals interested in digital media studies more broadly. While not all of them are related to the philosophy of computing or history of computing. I think there is great overlap. The only problem are the role of analog computers. I haven't seen much work in the digital humanities on them, but I would be curious as to what the history of computing can do in regards to breaking down the "digital" qualifier. Perhaps the old term humanities computing would be better still. On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Paul Fishwick <metaphorz@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 7:43 PM, Fishwick, Paul <pxf130430@utdallas.edu> wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:09 AM, Willard McCarty < willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk> wrote:
Dear all (from the sidelines),
I agree that the history and philosophy of computing belong in close proximity to each other, that both are rich and important fields -- and I'd like to see the usually far too utilitarian digital humanities (at the intersection of computing and the humanities) brought into the discussion. It's the intersecting that makes it valuable here. I particularly like Mike Mahoney's comment that the question "is computer science a science" is actually two questions: "what happens to computing if you call it a science?" and "what do you mean by 'science' if computing is one?”
This is one response to these two questions:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2601381.2601391
-p
Yours, WM
Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick Blog: creative-automata.com
Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick Blog: creative-automata.com
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
Thanks to Nabeel Siddiqui for the comments. The ignorance of analogue computing and confusion over the term is widespread, not just among those who are associated with digital humanities. On analogue computing specifically I can recommend Charles Care's Technology for Modelling (Springer 2010), his chapter in Chris Bissell and Chris Dillon, eds. Ways of Thinking, Ways of Seeing ( Springer 2012), and James Small's The Analogue Alternative (Routledge 2001). Vannevar Bush's papers from the 1930s are valuable, also his autobiography, Pieces of the Action. To my mind the best way to think about digital humanities is to locate its intellectual and practical core in the intersection of computing and the humanities, or more radically, at the crash-site where they collide with each other. Its essential to avoid thinking of the relation which constitutes the field as one way, not just computing/CS impacting the humanities, leading to all manner of fascinating outcomes, nor just the humanities specifying applications to be written, leading to useful tools, but both simultaneously. The conditions under which computer science came to be and has grown are very different, but the two fields share some of the same problems. Historically digital humanities grew out of technologically adept people in a position of service working for a small minority of interested scholars, leading to service centres of various kinds, most of which no longer exist because they did not have a purchase on the core mandate of their institutions. Academic departments and academic appointments are a very recent phenomenon, though the number of these are growing. I suggest that anyone interested in matters of this sort subscribe to Humanist, dhhumanist.org, which has been going since 1987. Yours, WM On 04/12/2014 17:48, Nabeel Siddiqui wrote:
I think the question of the digital humanities as a discipline is critical here, and agree the question of "what is the science" in "computer science" needs to be asked.
I have recently started identifying more often as a cultural historian of new media/computers. Previously, I identified with the digital humanities more, and I still identify with it it some degree.
As I'v understood it, I think the digital humanities more or less consists of three groups. One, individuals interested in a humanities oriented approach to the "digital," such as questions of access, race, gender, etc. Two, individuals interested in using computational techniques in humanities research. Three, individuals interested in digital media studies more broadly.
While not all of them are related to the philosophy of computing or history of computing. I think there is great overlap. The only problem are the role of analog computers. I haven't seen much work in the digital humanities on them, but I would be curious as to what the history of computing can do in regards to breaking down the "digital" qualifier. Perhaps the old term humanities computing would be better still.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Paul Fishwick <metaphorz@gmail.com <mailto:metaphorz@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 7:43 PM, Fishwick, Paul <pxf130430@utdallas.edu <mailto:pxf130430@utdallas.edu>> wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:09 AM, Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk <mailto:willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>> wrote:
Dear all (from the sidelines),
I agree that the history and philosophy of computing belong in close proximity to each other, that both are rich and important fields -- and I'd like to see the usually far too utilitarian digital humanities (at the intersection of computing and the humanities) brought into the discussion. It's the intersecting that makes it valuable here. I particularly like Mike Mahoney's comment that the question "is computer science a science" is actually two questions: "what happens to computing if you call it a science?" and "what do you mean by 'science' if computing is one?”
This is one response to these two questions:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2601381.2601391
-p
Yours, WM
Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick <http://utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick> Blog: creative-automata.com <http://creative-automata.com/>
Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick <http://utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick> Blog: creative-automata.com <http://creative-automata.com>
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org <mailto:members@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
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
-- Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/), Professor, Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London, and Digital Humanities Research Group, University of Western Sydney
Dear list members, Paul Fishwick had a response to the riddle of computing's scientific nature; here's another shot at the same question: http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781482217698 Fresh from press - still warm. But it's not a history book. It's not a philosophy book either. I don't know what kind of book it is, but it was fun to write. Matti Tedre Fishwick, Paul wrote:
On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:09 AM, Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk<mailto:willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>> wrote:
Dear all (from the sidelines),
I agree that the history and philosophy of computing belong in close proximity to each other, that both are rich and important fields -- and I'd like to see the usually far too utilitarian digital humanities (at the intersection of computing and the humanities) brought into the discussion. It's the intersecting that makes it valuable here. I particularly like Mike Mahoney's comment that the question "is computer science a science" is actually two questions: "what happens to computing if you call it a science?" and "what do you mean by 'science' if computing is one?”
This is one response to these two questions:
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2601381.2601391
-p
Yours, WM
Paul Fishwick, PhD Chair, ACM SIGSIM Distinguished University Chair of Arts & Technology and Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick<http://utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick> Blog: creative-automata.com<http://creative-automata.com>
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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
participants (12)
-
Andrew J Iliadis -
Andrew Russell -
Bjorn Westergard -
Dag Spicer -
Fishwick, Paul -
JOHNSON, ANN -
Liesbeth De Mol -
Matti Tedre -
Melanie Swalwell -
Nabeel Siddiqui -
Paul Fishwick -
Willard McCarty