Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
We need to be wary of claimed results, not only because we might disagree for
technical reasons but because the behaviour of other researchers may not be objective
or reasonable. Another lesson is that acceptance of (or silence about) poor science
erodes the perceived need for responsible research, and that it is always reasonable
to ask skeptical questions. Yet another lesson is that we need to take care to ensure
that our own research is well founded.
Reflections on Research
Philosophers and historians of science have reflected at length on the meaning, ele-
ments, and methods of research, from both practical and abstract points of view.
While philosophy can seem remote from the practical challenges of research, these
reflections can be of great benefit to working scientists, who can learn from an overall
perspective on their work. Being able to describe what we do helps us to understand
whether we are doing it well.
Such philosophies and definitions of science help to establish guidelines for the
practical work that scientists do, and set boundaries on what we can know. However,
there are limits to how precise (or interesting) such definitions can be. For example,
the question “is computer science a science?” has a low information content.
5
Ques-
tions of this kind are sometimes in terms of definitions of science such as “a process
for discovering laws that model observed natural phenomena”. Such definitions not
only exclude disciplines such as computing, but also exclude much of the research
now undertaken in disciplines such as biology and medicine. In considering defi-
nitions of science, a certain degree of skepticism is valuable; these definitions are
made by scientists working within particular disciplines and within the viewpoints
that those disciplines impose.
6
(Footnote 4 continued)
personality” (p. 18), explains the “drives of the Freudian death wish” (p. 17), and “will provide an
objective language in terms of which persons can discuss social problems impersonally” (p. 543).
It “will help to protect mankind from the virtual criminal action of persons in strategic political,
commercial, social, intellectual and academic positions” (p. 544) and “as the authority of revealed
religion and its attendant ethics declines, something must take its place …I feel that this type of
research may yield results that will fulfill those needs” (p. 544). Perhaps these extraordinary claims
are quirks, and in any case opinions do not invalidate scientific results. But it has been argued
that the behaviour captured by Zipf's conjecture is a simple consequence of randomness, and, for
the example for which the conjecture is often cited (distribution of words in text), the fit between
hypothesis and observation is not always strong.
5
Two philosophers are arguing in a bar. The barman goes over to them and asks, “What are you
arguing about?”
“We're debating whether computer science is a science”, answers one of them.
“And what do you conclude?” asks the barman.
“We're not sure yet,” says the other. “We can't agree on what 'is' means”.
6
But, in fairness, the views here have the same limitations, as they are those of a computer scientist
who believes that the discipline stands alongside the traditional sciences.
