In my review http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/an/2014/01/man2014010069.pdf I suggested that Knuth's view of history writing was among several topics suggested by the booklet that would be interesting discussion topics in a course where the students are just beginning to consider the issues in writing history. I believe our current discussion tends to confirm my assessment. -- home address: 12 Linden Rd., E. Sandwich, MA 02537 home ph=508-888-7655; cell ph = 503-757-3137 email address: dave@walden-family.com; website: <http://www.walden-family.com/bbn/>http://www.walden-family.com/bbn/
With regards to difficulties in writing the history of computing, the paper “A Trilogy of Errors in the History of Computing” by Metropolis and Worlton (AHC, v.2 no. 1, January 1980, pp. 49—59) may be a relevant read. The lead sentences are: “The critic who investigates the inadequacies of the history of computing is at once faced with an embarrassment of riches. Computer scientists seem determined to confirm the judgment of professional historians that scientists should not be depended upon to produce the histories of their own fields.” and yet further on the authors say: “Computer science is fortunate to have people trained in both history and computing to direct the major project on the history of computing at the Smithsonian Museum of History and Technology, but there is an essential role for the “good amateur” to play in preparing this history. The field is so broad and the professional historians so few that they cannot do all of the detailed work of collecting, organizing, and documenting that is necessary; further, much of the information is known only to the computing pioneers who are, by and large, amateurs in the field of history.” Cheers, Scott
Hi Scott: Your Metropolis quote reminds me of something that Kenneth O. May, then head of the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Toronto, once said to me. I was visiting there, I think just after my book "The Origins of Digital Computers: Selected Papers" had been published in 1973, and I was invited to give a seminar. He sensed that I felt uncomfortable, a mere computer scientist, at the thought of giving a seminar in such a distinguished venue, and I will always recall his reassurance, which was to the effect: "Don't worry Brian, there is as much bad history of science written by historians who don't understand science as by scientists who don't understand history." In fact I had been made aware of my limitations as a self-taught "historian" by my wife, who had been horrified to find that I thought Blaise Pascal's main claim to fame was as the inventor of one of the first calculating machines. So I felt I was not fitted to produce anything more than what I learned was known as an "internalist" history. Indeed I am very pleased that such histories of computing continue to be produced, alongside ones that take a broader (and sometimes shallower) view. Cheers Brian Randell On 19 May 2014, at 00:00, Scott Guthery <sbg@acw.com> wrote:
With regards to difficulties in writing the history of computing, the paper “A Trilogy of Errors in the History of Computing” by Metropolis and Worlton (AHC, v.2 no. 1, January 1980, pp. 49—59) may be a relevant read. The lead sentences are:
“The critic who investigates the inadequacies of the history of computing is at once faced with an embarrassment of riches. Computer scientists seem determined to confirm the judgment of professional historians that scientists should not be depended upon to produce the histories of their own fields.”
and yet further on the authors say:
“Computer science is fortunate to have people trained in both history and computing to direct the major project on the history of computing at the Smithsonian Museum of History and Technology, but there is an essential role for the “good amateur” to play in preparing this history. The field is so broad and the professional historians so few that they cannot do all of the detailed work of collecting, organizing, and documenting that is necessary; further, much of the information is known only to the computing pioneers who are, by and large, amateurs in the field of history.”
Cheers, Scott
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT 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
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell
Brian and all I once heard physics Nobelist Murray Gell-Mann extol the virtues of cross-trained scientists as the best way to fashion break-throughs in new inter-disciplinary thought (at the emergence of genetic engineering as a discipline). After ten minutes of praise for the individuals brave enough to venture into this ‘no-man’s land’, he paused and said something to the effect of: “But you know, the physicists at our pace will never trust a chemist telling them about physics, nor would our chemists ever consider listening to a physicist talk to them about chemistry.” The parallels may be apt. I was impressed at our last SHOT conference by Jim Cordata’s view that you work hard with all the talent you have, bring everything to bear from your own background, and get as much help as possible. Then ‘just let the results stand on their own.’ We compared notes on ‘bad history of science’ for the specific arenas we’ve traveled in computing, and even though some factoids in some very good books are egregiously wrong (I’m thinking for example of the graphic employment history in Silicon Valley that Christophe Lecuyer used to underpin his thesis), those really are incidental to the main work. Very much fits the narrow Blaise Pascal comment, Brian. Chuck On May 19, 2014, at 3:37 AM, B. Randell <brian.randell@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
Hi Scott:
Your Metropolis quote reminds me of something that Kenneth O. May, then head of the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Toronto, once said to me. I was visiting there, I think just after my book "The Origins of Digital Computers: Selected Papers" had been published in 1973, and I was invited to give a seminar. He sensed that I felt uncomfortable, a mere computer scientist, at the thought of giving a seminar in such a distinguished venue, and I will always recall his reassurance, which was to the effect: "Don't worry Brian, there is as much bad history of science written by historians who don't understand science as by scientists who don't understand history."
In fact I had been made aware of my limitations as a self-taught "historian" by my wife, who had been horrified to find that I thought Blaise Pascal's main claim to fame was as the inventor of one of the first calculating machines. So I felt I was not fitted to produce anything more than what I learned was known as an "internalist" history. Indeed I am very pleased that such histories of computing continue to be produced, alongside ones that take a broader (and sometimes shallower) view.
Cheers
Brian Randell
On 19 May 2014, at 00:00, Scott Guthery <sbg@acw.com> wrote:
With regards to difficulties in writing the history of computing, the paper “A Trilogy of Errors in the History of Computing” by Metropolis and Worlton (AHC, v.2 no. 1, January 1980, pp. 49—59) may be a relevant read. The lead sentences are:
“The critic who investigates the inadequacies of the history of computing is at once faced with an embarrassment of riches. Computer scientists seem determined to confirm the judgment of professional historians that scientists should not be depended upon to produce the histories of their own fields.”
and yet further on the authors say:
“Computer science is fortunate to have people trained in both history and computing to direct the major project on the history of computing at the Smithsonian Museum of History and Technology, but there is an essential role for the “good amateur” to play in preparing this history. The field is so broad and the professional historians so few that they cannot do all of the detailed work of collecting, organizing, and documenting that is necessary; further, much of the information is known only to the computing pioneers who are, by and large, amateurs in the field of history.”
Cheers, Scott
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT 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
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT 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 (4)
-
B. Randell -
Chuck House -
Dave Walden -
Scott Guthery