Should Computer Science be Referred to as a Science?

In the academy, we have a tendency to label disciplines of study as either an 'art' or a 'science.' This sort of categorization is beneficial in some ways; for instance, by labelling a group of courses as 'sciences,' we understand that their premises are in some way linked through a similar grounding in scientific rationality. The 'arts,' on the other hand, are often characterized by a blend of empirical support and speculation. By breaking dividing courses into two groups, we can choose a path of study based on our fundamental interests: objectively provable phenomenon via the sciences or creative expression and thought experiments via the arts. However, it is important to note that these categories are not always mutually exclusive. On these grounds, I think this categorical dichotomy actually imposes a limit on our understanding of each field within these umbrella categories, e.g. physics, computer science, philosophy, etc...., to inhibit our intellectual development. The popular categorization of computer science as a 'science' reveals the intellectually limiting nature of the division of the academy into faculties of 'arts' and 'sciences,' because computer science is grounded in both a scientific rationality, characteristic of the sciences, and desire for creative expression, partly characteristic of the arts. The artistic side, however, is often forgotten.

We can view the expression of ideas as a basic premise of object-oriented programming. When we write a function, we hope to take a parameter, interact with it in some meaninful way, and then express that interaction via an output or by changing the value of a variable. This allows us to express an idea to the user of our function. In this way, computer science is reminiscent of a language course in the arts. In learning a second language, we hope to take an idea, and articulate, or output, it in a way that that other people can understand. Expression is one of the fundamental purposes of language. This common goal of language courses in the humanities and computer science courses in the sciences sends a rift through the idea of the arts and sciences being distinct fields from each other. The constructed separation of these two fields obscures the otherwise clear connection between them, and inhibits us from applying knowledge from one to the other interchangeably.

Furthermore, we often think of programming as a means to a strictly utilitarian end. In other words, we tend to value programming for it's ability to produce something that we can use productively. For instance, we might write a function that can produce a numerical value based on a wide range of sources, so that we can use it in some productive way. We do this in the most efficient and calculated way possible. While human language can serve this purpose as well, via the dissemination of commands, it can serve other purposes as well. For instance, we can write poems or prose for sheer literary appreciation. If we step outside of the dominant use of programming-language, i.e. for utilitarian purposes, can we appreciate it in the same way we do other languages, such as French or English? Can we not use it to represent something that carries value outside of a paradigm of utilitarianism? I think the case of video games is a salient example of how computer science can be used to produce something that is valuable without being strictly utilitarian. In 2012, independent software development studio Thatgamecompany produced Journey, a game centred around a nameless protagonist on a mysterious quest.




Of course, object-oriented programming language serves as a backbone for Journey, and therefore provides a strict and calculated mathematical rationality for how everything in the game's digital environment works, e.g. movement, lighting, geometrical shapes. However, these myriad mathematical attributes coalesce to form a digital world defined by its enigma and enjoyability. Journey's value is undeniable, but not for utilitarian reasons. Journey, contrary to what is often prescribed in the academy, reaffirms the possibility of computer science being used as a means to an artistic end, and not a strictly scientific one. I think that if the academy expressed computer science as both a scientific and artistic tool, students would have a broader understanding of how computer science can be used, and perhaps be inclined to use it more creatively.

Thus, the case of computer science forces us to deconstruct our preconceptions of 'science' and 'art,' and ask does the departmentalization of the academy limit our ability to recognize the possible applications of computer science?

On a side note, I would also like to take a moment to recognize a fellow slogger. ACC's post on A1 provides a great overview of the difficulties of the assignment. If anyone struggled with A1, I strongly encourage you to look at ACC's test in order to brush up before the final.