¿Es la ciencia de la computación ciencia?, ¿toda ciencia es ciencia de la computación?

[Jorge Alvarado Revata]

Hola amigos, quiero compartir parte de dos articulos, el primero (Is
computer science science?,http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1053291.1053309),
el segundo (http://www.cs.iastate.edu/all-science-is-cs.html),

Estos articulos me plantean las siguientes interrogantes ¿tiene el
campo CS problemas para definir sus propias fronteras y para
establecer el aspecto cientifico o ingenieril de sus diversas ramas?,
¿que nos impide heredar ese problema, cuando creamos nuevas carreras
en ingeniería de software, diseño computacional, ciencia de la
computación? ¿Estamos encaminados en la estrategía correcta?, ¿CS va
camino a ser una ciencia fundamental como las matemáticas y sus ramas
de aplicación serán ingenierias y ciencias aparte?


Aqui les comparto parte del primer articulo:

...(A)What is your profession?

(B)Computer science.

(A)Oh? Is that a science?

(B)Sure, it is the science of information processes and their
interactions with the world.

(A)I'll accept that what you do is technology; but not science.
Science deals with fundamental laws of nature. Computers are man-made.
Their principles come from other fields such as physics and
electronics engineering.

(B)Hold on. There are many natural information processes. Computers
are tools to implement, study, and predict them. In the U.S. alone,
nearly 200 academic departments recognize this; some have been
granting CS degrees for 40 years.

(A)They all partake of a mass delusion. The pioneers of your field
genuinely believed in the 1950s that their new field was science. They
were mistaken. There is no computer science. Computer art, yes.
Computer technology, yes. But no science. The modern term, Information
Technology, is closer to the truth.

(B)I don't accept your statements about my field and my degree. Do you
mind if we take a closer look? Let's examine the accepted criteria for
science and see how computing stacks up.

(A)I'm listening....



...(A)All right, I'll accept that. You have science, you have art, you
can surprise, and you have a future. But you also have a credibility
problem. In the 1960s your people claimed they would soon build
artificially intelligent systems that would rival human experts and
make new scientific discoveries. In the 1970s they claimed that they
would soon be able to systematically produce reliable, dependable,
safe, and secure software systems. In the 1980s it was the
disappearance of paper, universities, libraries, and commuting. None
of these things happened. In the 1990s you contributed to the Internet
boom and then crashed with the dot-com bust. Now you're making all
sorts of claims about secure systems, spam-blocking, collaboration,
enterprise systems, DNA design, bionics, nanotechnology, and more. Why
should I believe you?...


Del segundo articulo extraigo esta sección:

...But the biggest change, he said, was in biology. "Ten years ago
biologists were very dismissive of the need for computation," Dr.
Kepler said. "Now they are aware that you can't really do biology
without it." ...



Saludos,

Jorge Luis Alvarado.