Beating the air

Despite what it might look like, comparing John Horgan's and Peter Denning's view on
computer science isn't such a trivial task. It's enough to quickly look through both articles to notice that
Horgan and Denning have fundamental differences in their definition of science and computer science.
Horgan being a recognized and well educated journalist has no degree in any of the exact sciences, and
those happen to be his favorite subjects for books and articles.3) Thus we concluded that Horgan's
understanding of computer science is very narrow, compared to Denning's view who happens to be an
honored professor of computer science and played a vital role in computer science education system
development in USA. 4)
Horgan in his article “The end of Science” states that exact sciences can't progress infinitely.
He says that this is precisely the reason behind recent slow down and soon a full stop of our scientific
progress. Computer science isn't an exception and like any other science it has it's limits. Horgan
points that the main goal for computer science is creation of a fully functional artificial intelligence
and questions opinions of other scientists (read Denning) that believe in chaoplexity which focuses on
fusing computer science with other sciences both humanitarian and exact.
Denning on the other hand begins with breaking computer science into it's different
components like applied programming, engineering, mathematical computer science. He than shows
that even computer scientists themselves cannot define what computer science is. This is easily proved
by considering all the renames computer science went through: computer science, computer discipline,
information technology. Some even called it computer art! Yet in our opinion how you call it is
unimportant, the question is rhetorical nor does answering it yield any practically useful results. The
point here is that Denning succeeded in representing a more extensive view on computer science by
breaking it into several independent yet commuting between each other areas of expertise. Those
groups are vital for any science, check chemistry for example, organic and inorganic chemistry can be
treated as an independent fields, yet on a larger scale they connect to form a whole that is chemistry.
As a result we can see that Horgan view on computer science is not only narrow or limited but
almost non existent at all. He treats computer science as one huge lump that is supposed to develop
artificial intelligence. However when it's results are not as good as in all those sci-fi movies with fancy
AI's enslaving all organics, Horgan expresses his concern and disappointment. Sadly this is a very
popular view due to some computer scientists boasting about AI creation somewhere around 1960.
Luckily for us Denning handles computer science meticulously exploring every branch out there. After
a lot of debating we decided that derivatives of computer science future based on Denning's views are
more trustworthy. Denning also mentions that the whole dispute about AI creation was a mistake made
by advertising departments and all computer scientists are now paying for it.
However we cannot dismiss Horgan's criticism and his concern completely, while lacking
proper education to grasp some technical nuances his observation skills are exceptional. He asks right
questions and we bet that answering them would make even the toughest computer scientists sweat.
“Has computer science already made all the big discoveries it’s going to? Has it made any big
discoveries at all? Is incremental progress all that remains?” If we are to be objective and honest all
discoveries computer science made are applicative in one way or another, and World Wide Web pales
in comparison with quantum mechanics. Denning of course goes on to defend computer science
against this line of questioning, and quite rightly so. We also agreed that it would be preposterous to
say that research into computer science has been exhausted. Still it looks like Denning is defending

Georgi Popov, Panu Klemola, Aleksandr Peussa, Lauri Keinänen

computer science against the wrong question.
The right question is “Can computer science really come up with something as
monumental as the theory of evolution, general relativity, quantum mechanics, the big bang theory,
DNA-based genetics ?” According to Horgan the problem with other scientists lies in the amount of
things already discovered, to discover something new we need accumulate and comprehend all the
data discovered before us. This is a difficult task by itself, understanding of our current complex
systems used to describe universe already requires more brain power than that of an average human
being, not to mention that for a ground-breaking invention understanding is only the first step on the
road to creating an even more complex system. As for computer science which is a relatively new
science, lack of monumental discoveries is a gruesome sign, and even more questions are spawned like
“Why is computer science different from other sciences? Is it worth investing in it? Will it die out once
the current round of computer-science-in-the-making settles out, assuming the hackers don't secede?”
Denning isn't far behind and takes responsibility to answer Horgan's question directly. He
begins with displaying a list of problems current computer scientists are trying to solve. Interesting
enough most problems listed there are not so obvious for amateurs (read Horgan). By doing this
Denning again expands the view of computer science from mere “those guys code AI's and fail” to
“wow those are the guys that made lossless file compression possible, thanks to them I can now send
my article to other people in its original quality!”. He also claims that paradigms in computer science
are helpful unlike paradigms in other sciences, the wider computer scientists knowledge of paradigms
the better computer scientists he is. Sadly this is where Denning's justified arguments end.
“Horgan argues that the number of scientific fields is limited and each one is slowly being
exhausted.” Denning disagrees with this, by telling that computer science is like a virus, it integrates
into already existing fields like physics, biology and by implementing, interacting, and embedding
with those fields it opens up entirely new fields. There is however a logical error in this statement,
Denning protects only computer science thinking that its somehow different from other sciences. Let
us imagine that Horgan is right about sciences future except computer science, and Denning is right
about computer science future. What we have now is completely exhausted fields of science, now we
apply Denning's “virus” theory, cs integrates into one of those exhausted fields for example “DNA-
genetics” and opens a new field for example “simulations and modeling of chemical reactions on
DNA”. We notice right ahead that nobody would need simulations and modeling in an already
exhausted field. This is where we think Denning is wrong by defending only computer science he nails
the lid of his own coffin. Which is a rather weird thing to do by the way.
Summarizing the key points we would say that Horgan and Denning are too interested in the
outcome of this debate to be fully objective, unlike Horgan however Denning's reasons are quite
obvious he is a computer scientist himself. Horgan's view is somewhat dramatic and skeptic while
Denning's view is quite the opposite. Looking back on the arguments Denning definitely scores more
points by trying to present evidence to support his point of view, and his article is more academic then
Horgan's. Still it looks like one cannot fully understand the other their claims resemble a witch hunt,
since Horgan tries to show that science is soon to die and Denning takes that personally for some
reason.
It was quite a challenge to write this essay because both articles are quite short, and Horgan's
part about computer science was even shorter. The most important think we learned is information
extraction methods, group coordination, and of course this was an exceptional experience for our
English skills.

Georgi Popov, Panu Klemola, Aleksandr Peussa, Lauri Keinänen

 Word count: 1305

Source list
1) ACM Digital Library “The end of science revisited” by John Horgan
2) ACM Digital Library “Is computer science science?” by Peter Denning
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Horgan_(American_journalist)
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_J._Denning

Georgi Popov, Panu Klemola, Aleksandr Peussa, Lauri Keinänen