Ah, the ever green tradition of humans to define very fuzzy categories and then debating enlessly about what stuff belongs to what category.
For example what's the difference between a boat and a raft? At what point is a water vehicle a boat and at what point is it a raft? Any debate on this is simply a linguistic debate disguised as a philosophical one. There's a gradient from boat to raft and people are just debating about a positional problem of where the line of delineation falls. This example is obvious though.
Less obvious is the word "life." When is something classified as living and when is it it classified as not alive? Is a rock alive? Is a plant? Is a deep learning dall-e 3 alive? Is a human alive? Is a brain dead human alive? Seems like a deep philosophical argument but my point here is to say that this argument is as pointless as the boat and the raft.
This thread is the same thing. Pointless debate on whether CS is a liberal arts or not? It's a debate on linguistics. You're all just trying to debate about definitions of arbitrary words. Nothing interesting.
Words do have meaning and in a sense it's all we have.
Approaching CS as a series of abstract mathematical problems to solve can make you a very good programmer. Finding the right place in society to sell your .exe's is sometimes better solved by a programmer with a liberal arts education.
Liberal arts is like a business degree. You don't need a business degree to be good at business. In fact, the business degree is largely useless when it comes to business.
But this is besides the fact. The point is I don't actually care whether you call CS a science, a math, or a liberal arts major. It's not a profound question at all. It's more of a question I would classify as stupid. The debate around it occurs because although the question is stupid, it is deceptively profound... Similar to the question of, "what is life?"
> If you were stuck on a desert island, would you prefer a boat or a raft to rescue you? I'd pick boat everytime.
Oh you mean you want to be rescued by this boat: https://www.amazon.com/Intex-Explorer-3-Person-Inflatable-Fr...
Instead of this raft?: https://www.comfortboats.com/en/home
Again the point is the words have a fuzzy delineation. Where this point of delineation exactly lies is not an interesting or profound question, just like the question of whether or not CS is a liberal art.
I agree computer science needs to change. There needs to be a way to incorporate some of those aspects into a CS degree. If we want the full advantages of tech in our lives.
What do the fields/papers (whih the author IS referring to, very concretely) have to offer to the discussion about where the field of CS, and its business applications, should be going?
This way we don’t have to discuss category boundaries. The concrete implications of the arguments are there to evaluate.
That the actual substance is dismissed here out of hand is quite frustrating to me.
After all, you’d expect best performers in this field to all be from liberal arts colleges like Middlebury. And the folks there are great but it’s not like they’re superpowered compared to the Vanderbilt guys. So it isn’t some sort of game changer.
It seems obvious though, I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood how deep this particular rabbit hole goes.
You don't think it's evil for people to have to steal food just to avoid starvation? You don't think it's evil that people have to make the choice between stealing and dignity?
Weird.
If I like the thing then it definitely belongs in the category I like. If I don’t like the thing then it definitely belongs in the category I don’t like.
Nothing remains in the latter category for more than an instant.