Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42 (2):385-397 (2011)
|Abstract||Because the label "computing and philosophy" can seem like an ad hoc attempt to tie computing to philosophy, it is important to explain why it is not, what it studies (or does) and how it differs from research in, say, "computing and history," or "computing and biology". The American Association for History and Computing is "dedicated to the reasonable and productive marriage of history and computer technology for teaching, researching and representing history through scholarship and public history" (http://theaahc.org). More pervasive, work in computing and biology enjoys the convenient name of "bioinformatics...the science of using information to understand biology..., a subset of the larger field of computational biology, the application of quantitative analytical techniques in modeling biological systems" (http://oreilly.com/catalog/bioskills/chapter/ ch01.html). The recent venture of the Association for Computing Machinery and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers to publish the Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (TCBB) bears witness to the reach of computing and biology and underscores its objective. TCBB intends to report "archival research results related to the algorithmic, mathematical, statistical, and computational methods that are central in bioinformatics and computational biology; the development and testing of effective computer programs in bioinformatics; the development and optimization of biological databases; and important biological results that are obtained from the use of these methods, programs, and databases" (http://tcbb.acm.org). In the case of "computing and history" and "bioinformatics," each discipline stands in a particular relationship to computers that raises questions unique to itself. But both are devoted to the development of computational tools to aid discovery..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gheorghe Paun & Mario J. Pérez-Jiménez (2003). Recent Computability Models Inspired From Biology: DNA and Membrane Computing. Theoria 18 (1):71-84.
Matti Tedre (2011). Computing as a Science: A Survey of Competing Viewpoints. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 21 (3):361-387.
Gualtiero Piccinini (2007). Computing Mechanisms. Philosophy of Science 74 (4):501-526.
Gregory Linshiz, Alex Goldberg, Tania Konry & Nathan J. Hillson (2013). The Fusion of Biology, Computer Science, and Engineering: Towards Efficient and Successful Synthetic Biology. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 55 (4):503-520.
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic (2011). Significance of Models of Computation, From Turing Model to Natural Computation. Minds and Machines 21 (2):301-322.
Zenon W. Pylyshyn (1989). Computing and Cognitive Science. In Michael I. Posner (ed.), Foundations of Cognitive Science. MIT Press.
Klaus R. Scherer, Tanja Bänziger & Etienne Roesch (eds.) (2010). A Blueprint for Affective Computing: A Sourcebook and Manual. OUP Oxford.
Gualtiero Piccinini (2003). Computations and Computers in the Sciences of Mind and Brain. Dissertation. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
R. B. Patel & B. P. Singh (eds.) (2011). 2nd International Conference on Methods and Models in Science and Technology (Icm2st-11), Jaipur, India, 19-20 November 2011. [REVIEW] American Institute of Physics.
Uri Pincas (2011). Program Verification and Functioning of Operative Computing Revisited: How About Mathematics Engineering? [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 21 (2):337-359.
Vincent C. Müller (2009). Symbol Grounding in Computational Systems: A Paradox of Intentions. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 19 (4):529-541.
Gordana Dodig Crnkovic (2006). Investigations Into Information Semantics and Ethics of Computing. Dissertation, Mälardalen University
Added to index2011-05-21
Total downloads15 ( #85,901 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?