Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computing as a Science: A Survey of Competing Viewpoints

  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the birth of computing as an academic discipline, the disciplinary identity of computing has been debated fiercely. The most heated question has concerned the scientific status of computing. Some consider computing to be a natural science and some consider it to be an experimental science. Others argue that computing is bad science, whereas some say that computing is not a science at all. This survey article presents viewpoints for and against computing as a science. Those viewpoints are analyzed against basic positions in the philosophy of science. The article aims at giving the reader an overview, background, and a historical and theoretical frame of reference for understanding and interpreting some central questions in the debates about the disciplinary identity of computer science. The article argues that much of the discussion about the scientific nature of computing is misguided due to a deep conceptual uncertainty about science in general as well as computing in particular.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arora, S., & Chazelle, B. (2005). Is the thrill gone? Communications of the ACM, 48(8), 31–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atchison, W. F., Conte, S. D., Hamblen, J. W., Hull, T. E., Keenan, T. A., & Kehl, W. B. (1968). Curriculum 68: Recommendations for academic programs in computer science: A report of the ACM curriculum committee on computer science. Communications of the ACM, 11(3), 151–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, F. P., Jr. (1996). The computer scientist as toolsmith II. Communications of the ACM, 39(3), 61–68.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M.(1998a). Philosophy of science: From explanation to justification (Rev. ed., Vol. 2). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

  • Bunge, M. (1998b). Philosophy of science: From problem to theory (Rev. ed., Vol. 1). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

  • Campbell-Kelly, M., & Aspray, W. (2004). Computer: A history of the information machine (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnap, R. (1967). The logical structure of the world; and, pseudoproblems in philosophy. California: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casti, J. L. (1989). Paradigms lost: Tackling the unanswered mysteries of modern science. New York, NY: Avon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceruzzi, P. E. (2003). A history of modern computing (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, A. (1936). An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory. American Journal of Mathematics, 58(2), 345–363.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Colburn, T. R. (2000). Philosophy and computer science. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couvalis, G. (1997). The philosophy of science: Science and objectivity. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • CSAB. (2006). Computing as a profession.

  • De Millo, R. A., Lipton, R. J., & Perlis, A. J. (1979). Social processes and proofs of theorems and programs. Communications of the ACM, 22(5), 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1996). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J. (1980a). ACM president’s letter: On folk theorems, and folk myths. Communications of the ACM, 23(9), 493–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J. (1980b). ACM president’s letter: What is experimental computer science? Communications of the ACM, 23(10), 543–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J. (1981). ACM president’s letter: Performance analysis: Experimental computer science as its best. Communications of the ACM, 24(11), 725–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J. (2003). Great principles of computing. Communications of the ACM, 46(11), 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J. (2005). Is computer science science? Communications of the ACM, 48(4), 27–31.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J. (2007). Computing is a natural science. Communications of the ACM, 50(7), 13–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J., Chang, C., & CC2001 Joint Task Force. (2001, March). Computing curricula 2001: Computer science volume. pdf.

  • Denning, P. J., Comer, D. E., Gries, D., Mulder, M. C., Tucker, A., & Turner, A. J., et al. (1989). Computing as a discipline. Communications of the ACM, 32(1), 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J., Feigenbaum, E., Gilmore, P., Hearn, A., Ritchie, R. W., & Traub, J. (1981). A discipline in crisis. Communications of the ACM, 24(6), 370–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J., & Freeman, P. A. (2009). Computing’s paradigm. Communications of the ACM, 52(12), 28–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (2009). Computing: The fourth great domain of science. Communications of the ACM, 52(9), 27–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, D. (1997). The fabric of reality. London, UK: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, E. W. (1972). The humble programmer. Communications of the ACM, 15(10), 859–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, E. W. (1974). Programming as a discipline of mathematical nature. American Mathematical Monthly, 81(6), 608–612.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, E. W. (1987). Mathematicians and computing scientists: The cultural gap. Abacus, 4(4), 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, E. W. (1997). The tide, not the waves. In P. J. Denning & R. M. Metcalfe (Eds.), Beyond calculation: The next fifty years of computing (pp. 59–64). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2003). Shifting the paradigm of philosophy of science: Philosophy of information and a new renaissance. Minds & Machines, 13(4), 521–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhem, P. (1977). The aim and structure of physical theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Atheneum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, J. A., & Sutherland, W. R. (1979). Rejuvenating experimental computer science: A report to the national science foundation and others. Communications of the ACM, 22(9), 497–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flamm, K. (1988). Creating the computer: Government, industry, and high technology. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, P. (1995). The role of experiments in computer science. Journal of Systems and Software, 30(1–2), 161–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, G. E. (1967). A university’s educational program in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 10(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, G. E. (1968). What to do till the computer scientist comes. American Mathematical Monthly, 75, 454–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, P. A. (2008). Back to experimentation. Communications of the ACM, 51(1), 21–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gal-Ezer, J., & Harel, D. (1998). What (else) should CS educators know? Communications of the ACM, 41(9), 77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galler, B. A. (1974). Letter from a past president: Distinction of computer science. Communications of the ACM, 17(6), 300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelernter, D. (1999). The aesthetics of computing. London, UK: Phoenix.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glashow, S. (1992). The death of science? In R. J. Elvee (Ed.), The end of science? attack and defense. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

  • Glass, R. L. (1995). A structure-based critique of contemporary computing research. Journal of Systems and Software, 28(1), 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldweber, M., Impagliazzo, J., Bogoiavlenski, I. A., Clear, A. G., Davies, G., & Flack, H., et al. (1997). Historical perspectives on the computing curriculum. SIGCUE Outlook, 25(4), 94–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, P. (2004). Hackers painters: Big ideas from the computer age. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamming, R. W. (1969). One man’s view of computer science. Journal of the ACM, 16(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harel, D. (1980). On folk theorems. Communications of the ACM, 23(7), 379–389.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmanis, J. (1981). Nature of computer science and its paradigms. Communications of the ACM, 24(6), 353–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmanis, J. (1993). Some observations about the nature of computer science. In R. K. Shyamasundar (Ed.), Foundations of software technology and theoretical computer science (Vol. 761, pp. 1–12). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmanis, J. (1994). Turing award lecture on computational complexity and the nature of computer science. Communications of the ACM, 37(10), 37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, C. (Ed.). (2004). Contemporary debates in philosophy of science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, C. M. (1995). Software engineering and epistemology. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 20(2), 20–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny, J. G. (1959). A philosopher looks at science. Princeton, NJ: Van Nost, Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalil, H., & Levy, L. S. (1978). The academic image of computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 10(2), 31–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiikeri, M., & Ylikoski, P. (2004). Tiede tutkimuskohteena: Filosofinen johdatus tieteentutkimukseen. Helsinki, Finland: Gaudeamus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knuth, D. E. (1972). Ancient Babylonian algorithms. Communications of the ACM, 15(7), 671–677.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Knuth, D. E. (1974a). Computer programming as an art. Communications of the ACM, 17(12), 667–673.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Knuth, D. E. (1974b). Computer science and its relation to mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 81, 323–343.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Knuth, D. E. (1985). Algorithmic thinking and mathematical thinking. American Mathematical Monthly, 92, 170–181.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Knuth, D. E. (2001). Things a computer scientist rarely talks about. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, S. G. (2002). Book review: “A new kind of science” by Stephen Wolfram. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 40(1), 143–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery J. Worrall & E. Zahar (Eds.), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes. In J. Worrall & G. Currie (Eds.), Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 59–89). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCracken, D. D., Denning, P. J., & Brandin, D. H. (1979). An ACM executive committee position on the crisis in experimental computer science. Communications of the ACM, 22(9), 503–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKee, G. (1995). Computer science or simply ’computics’? The open channel. Computer, 28(12), 136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M. L. (1979). Computer science and the representation of knowledge. In M. L. Dertouzos & J. Moses (Eds.), The computer age: A twenty-year view (pp. 392–421). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moor, J. H. (1978). Three myths of computer science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 29, 213–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, L. K. (1963). The nature of the natural sciences. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J. (1975). First draft of a report on the EDVAC. In B. Randell (Ed.), The origins of digital computers: Texts and monographs in computer science (2nd ed., pp. 355–364). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., Perlis, A. J., & Simon, H. A. (1967). Computer science. Science, 157(3795), 1373–1374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1961). Computer simulation of human thinking. Science, 134(3495), 2011–2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19(3), 113–126.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ousterhout, J. K. (1981). More on experimental computer science and funding. Communications of the ACM, 24(8), 546–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1934). Logik der Forschung. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck GmbH Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London, UK: Routledge.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Post, E. L. (1936). Finite combinatory processes–formulation 1. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1(3), 103–105.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O. (1980). From a logical point of view (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, A., & Shaw, M. (1980). Curriculum ’78–Is computer science really that unmathematical? Communications of the ACM, 23(2), 67–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport, W. J. (2005). Philosophy of computer science: An introductory course. Teaching Philosophy, 28(4), 319–341.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, J. R., & Rosen, S. (2004). Computer sciences at Purdue University—1962 to 2000. Annals of the History of Computing, IEEE, 26(2), 48–61.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rombach, D., & Seelisch, F. (2008). Formalisms in software engineering: Myths versus empirical facts. In B. Meyer, J. R. Nawrocki, & B. Walter (Eds.), Balancing agility and formalism in software engineering (Vol. 5082, pp. 13–25). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbloom, P. S. (2004). A new framework for computer science and engineering. Computer, 37(11), 23–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, P. E. (2003). 5 commandments (technology laws and rules of thumb). Spectrum, IEEE, 40(12), 30–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (1912). The problems of philosophy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 417–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1990a). Is the brain a digital computer? Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 64, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1990b). Is the brain’s mind a computer program? Scientific American, 262(1), 26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1996). The construction of social reality. England: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S. (2000). Thinking about mathematics: The philosophy of mathematics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S. C. (2001). Computer science: The study of procedures. Retrieved 24 Dec 2010, from http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~shapiro/Papers/whatiscs.pdf

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. C. (1998). On the origin of objects (MIT Paperback ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • de Solla Price, D. J. (1959). An ancient Greek computer. Scientific American, 200(6), 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, N. F. (1995). Science and computer science. ACM Computing Surveys, 27(1), 39–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tedre, M. (2006). The development of computer science: A sociocultural perspective. Joensuu, Finland: University of Joensuu Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tedre, M. (2009). Computing as engineering. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 15(8), 1642–1658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tedre, M., & Sutinen, E. (2008). Three traditions of computing: What educators should know. Computer Science Education, 18(3), 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tedre, M., & Sutinen, E. (2009). Crossing the Newton-Maxwell gap: Convergences and contingencies. Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, 3(1), 195–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tichy, W. F. (1998). Should computer scientists experiment more? Computer, 31(5), 32–40.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tichy, W. F., Lukowicz, P., Prechelt, L., & Heinz, E. A. (1995). Experimental evaluation in computer science: A quantitative study. Journal of Systems and Software, 28(1), 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turing, A. M. (1936). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Aociety, 42(Series 2), 230–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., & Glass, R. L. (2002). Research in information systems: An empirical study of diversity in the discipline and its journals. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 129–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, P. (1976). Research paradigms in computer science. In Icse ’76: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on software engineering (pp. 322–330). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

  • Weiss, E. A., & Corley, H. P. T. (1958). Letters to the editor. Communications of the ACM, 1(4), 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winston, P. (1977). Artificial intelligence. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (2nd bilingual ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

  • Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, H. M. (1995). Computer society celebrates 50 years. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 17(4), 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1968). Computer science as a discipline. The Journal of Engineering Education, 58(8), 913–916.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelkowitz, M. V., & Wallace, D. R. (1997). Experimental validation in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 39(11), 735–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelkowitz, M. V., & Wallace, D. R. (1998). Experimental models for validating technology. Computer, 31(5), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Academy of Finland grant #132572.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland

    Matti Tedre

  2. Tumaini University, Iringa University College, P.O. Box 200, Iringa, Tanzania

    Matti Tedre

Authors
  1. Matti Tedre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matti Tedre.

Additional information

The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tedre, M. Computing as a Science: A Survey of Competing Viewpoints. Minds & Machines 21, 361–387 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-011-9240-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-011-9240-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation