From: maniattb@cs.rpi.edu (Bill Maniatty)
Newsgroups: comp.os.research
Subject: Re: Future of CS & CE research (Petition)
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:49:17 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
Originator: osr@ftp

In article <190j4cINNsd3@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, rxb@leo.Stanford.EDU (Ramesh Bharadwaj) writes:
|> Here's my 2 cents worth on the petition and why there should be a petition
|> drive to kill the one being sponsored:
|> 
|> 
	[STUFF DELETED]
|> 
|> I think the corporate world, the general public and funding agencies are
|> sick and tired of tall claims made by researchers in "A.I." or, for that
|> matter, by "computing theorists" (whose "results" often bear an uncanny
|> resemblance to earlier work in mathematics or logic -- they are often a
|> rehash of previous work couched in different terminology, published in a
|> different journal, and read by a different audience).  It should therefore
|> not come as a surprise that the funding agencies are beginning to ask where
|> their money is going.
	[Stuff Deleted]
Clearly the field is not well understood, or people would not make outlandish
claims, nor would anyone believe them if they did.

Theory/Mathematics is like training for athletes.  Sure noone wants to pay
to watch some athlete train, but we all want the results of that training
when game time comes.

I'm applied myself, but without theory, application suffers.  I don't know
If I'd be so quick to cut theorists off.  We often don't recognize the importance
of theory until long after it is developed, and even applied areas don't show
the kind of quick fix results that seem to be wanted here.

|> If computer scientists feel that they are being downgraded to "soldiers on
|> the ground", they should probably ask themselves if their community is
|> worthy of being trusted; questionable research areas, tall claims and 
|> misleading proposals (" It has always been easy to couch proposals for
|> support of computer science in practical terms", to paraphrase your own
|> words) have produced rhetoric that has no bearing with reality.  Perhaps
|> researchers should begin to be honest with themselves first, before
|> they sponsor petitions to withdraw the NRC report.
	[Stuff Deleted]

We may need different criteria to evaluate quality of research.

Certainly computer scientists need good user relations (especially applied
computer scientists).  It is important to do what people want.
Researchers have to have some freedom though or no interesting results can
ever be generated.  If you already know the outcome of a research project,
then you haven't learned anything, what you did was implementation.


|> All the problems of any substance that you identify as problems that give
|> computer science its structure (sic), are within the domain of Software 
|> Engineering.  As for those that are not, all I can say is that funding for
|> Alchemy declined very quickly as soon as people realized its impossible
|> claims and irreproducible results.

Noam Chomsky is a linguist, not a Software Engineer.  Clearly the Chomsky
heirarchy provides an important tool for a structured approach to computer
science.  Newton invented Newton's method for finding roots.  Do we disregard
Newton's contribution because he was not a software engineer?

Computing science is a broad field and not well understood.  I don't think
saying ``All real computer scientists are software engineers'' is correct
given the history of the discipline.  Should we disregard someone's contribution
because they are officially in another discipline.



Conclusion:

The research structure of this country may need modification.
I do not agree with the solutions proposed by Ramesh because:
	1).  I feel his definition of computer science as software engineering
		is just too narrow.
	2).  His need for immediate results on investment is contrary to
		my concept of a good research policy.
	3).  He would place computer science in the hands of people whose
		concept of research is in complete disagreement with mine.

|> 
|> 
|> Ramesh Bharadwaj,
|> 
|> Ph.D. Student in Software Engineering.

Bill Maniatty

-- 
|
|	maniattb@cs.rpi.edu - in real life Bill Maniatty
|