> These days they teach the Philosophy of Science, and students get to > understand why Mathematicians are awarded Arts not Science degrees. > > Although it seems highly pedantic it is actually very important that > programmers have an insight into what they are really doing if they are > to advance the art. Are algorithms discovered or invented? Modern > opinion is that they are invented and hence can be patented, not > discovered like the laws of gravity etc, which are definitely not > patentable. That puts computing into the arts area along with mathematics. > JS
By the logic you propose you would have to place Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Engineering in the field of Arts; Had Einstein been more astute he could have patented e=mc squared and claimed intellectual property rights every time matter was converted into energy in an atomic bomb (If I hadn't given you the idea you couldn't have done it. If it explodes you owe me royalties). If an algorithm is patentable, why not a formula? Is a formula a one step algorithm, or is an algorithm a sequence of formulae? (I am not asking for a serious reply to this one!!) Patentability hardly clarifies the issue: there is little 'Art' in a Biogenetics company patenting the genetic code of a still living man with a genetic malady: more artful than artefice, and I think I smell the whiff of money; Philosophy, the love of sophistry, Science, the knowledge of something, and Art, the ability to apply knowledge to doing something, in the classical sense, together with the more modern idea that the practically useful is Science and that the culturally edifying though inessential is Art, in a sense, has only served to fudge the issue, as does the whimsical conferment of diplomas by category in educational institutions (Where shall we put Maths this year, Arts or Sciences?); The debate over Art and Science is an old one (and incidentally we are very, very Off Topic): though 'mixing' from between disciplines is decidedly healthy (a little bit of lateral thinking does you good); I have to say that most programmers are not good at lateral thinking (locked in to certain ways of thinking: too much Maths perhaps);
