From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Jan 25 11:18:54 2007 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:18:54 -0500 (EST) for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:18:46 -0500 (EST) 11:18:33 -0500 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU 16:08:32 -0000 Originator-Info: login-id=amhassan; server=imap.buffalo.edu X-UB-Relay: (resnet159-226.resnet.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:10:28 -0500 Reply-To: Ahmed Mohammed Hassan From: Ahmed Mohammed Hassan Subject: Re: C.S. IS PHILOSOPHY? To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU In-Reply-To: <200701250344.l0P3iPoX007688@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (resnet159-226.resnet.buffalo.edu) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2489/Thu Jan 25 07:35:24 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Hi all, To those of you who have read the argument, I argue that it's NOT even a valid argument, and consequently a bad one. Since: 1- if we represent the first sentence as "Foundation(Logic,Philosophy)" [or using a similar way of representation], 2- if we represent the second one by "Foundation(Logic,CS)", and 3- if both statements turn out to have the truth value "TRUE", then the 3rd statement ("Is(CD,Philosophy)") may still have the truth value "FALSE" in the world where people don't consider CS as a Philosophy sub-field (and this world model does exist :) ). Thus, the 3rd statement,namely "Computer Science is Philosophy", is unrelated, and the whole argument is NOT valid. Best. Ahmed. --On Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:44 PM -0500 "William J. Rapaport" wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Subject: C.S. IS PHILOSOPHY? > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Here's a bad argument inspired (but not explicitly stated) by > http://weblogs.java.net/blog/n_alex/archive/2003/08/computer_scienc.html > > 1. "Logic is the foundation of philosophy." > 2. "It's also the foundation of Computer Science." > Therefore(?), > 3. "Computer Science is Philosophy" > > Question: Why is it bad? :-) > >