03-02-2005, 11:16 AM
|
|
|
In article ,
(jane) writes:
| ~
| Going by your old .sig and email addy, a computer scientist?
No way! To quote a founder of modern computing: "Computer science
has nothing to do with computing and isn't a science."
| Otherwise known as someone who has to deal with whacky computing
| requests from every other discipline. And maybe knows a fair bit about
| semiconductors, materials science and logical flow.
The first, but not the second (except for logical flow).
| Either that or a mathematician (you could argue all physics is just
| applied maths, which would have shut Rutherford up).
Yes, precisely. Mathematician, statistician and incidental logician
and mathematical philosopher.
My main point was similar to your previous one in some respects.
Statistics was largely created by biologists, and most physicists
(including all 'hard' sciences here) still have trouble with it,
despite modern physics being increasingly probabilistic. But when
we get onto intrinsically unrepeatable experiments, observations
that are linked acausally and experimenter/observation interactions,
this gets MUCH worse. The experts on those, such as exist, are in
the fields of philosophy and the 'social sciences'.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
|