News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Toward Psychoinformatics: Computer Science Meets Psycholo... by mettamage on Wednesday June 27, 2018 @01:07PM (#17409881)
Psychoinformatics... I think it just goes to show that computer science is less of a science and more of a tool / method for other disciplines. Yes, you can be scientific about the tool that you're building (and measure it, test it). You can even have scientific theories about the tool that you're using (theory of computation) but to call this psychoinformatics would imply that the informatics part is scientific [1].

In my opinion it isn't. Collecting data through the use of big data methods (or whatever you want to call it) has nothing to do with science and everything to do with tool use. We never called psychology something like surveypsychology or fMRIpsychology. Why should psychoinformatics be different? Moreover, merging psychology with informatics could probably already be subsumed under artificial intelligence.

I am in favor of computational methods if applied ethically but I don't think it justifies something with a new name. Especially not if it is one of tool use since tools can change, then this field will either be stuck in old tools or have a nomenclature issue.

[1] Not to mention that computer science researchers are even debating among themselves whether the discipline is scientific.

Full disclosure: bachelor in psychology, bachelor in information science, master in computer science and master in game studies. I'd love to work at an intersection of psychology + computer science (+ games perhaps as well).

Re:Toward Psychoinformatics: Computer Science Meets Psycholo... by 0xdeadbeefbabe on Wednesday June 27, 2018 @02:10PM (#17410412)
Names are just a tool too. The debate is settled for me when I read about Norbert Wiener, Von Neumann, etc.
Re:Toward Psychoinformatics: Computer Science Meets Psycholo... by mettamage on Wednesday June 27, 2018 @04:20PM (#17411491)
Hmm, names are tools, I agree. Could you give some sources? I'm curious.
Re:Toward Psychoinformatics: Computer Science Meets Psycholo... by 0xdeadbeefbabe on Thursday June 28, 2018 @12:16PM (#17418171)
The Dream Machine: J.C.R. Licklider and the Revolution That Made Computing Personal is a good source on Von Neumann, Wiener, Licklider, and more. The book makes computing look like a science.

The names comment is from me. I wish they'd replace "Artificial Intelligence" with "Algorithms++", for example. Either way though, it's not so much the name that matters, unless it's a terrible name... loop.

Re:Toward Psychoinformatics: Computer Science Meets Psycholo... by s-shellfish on Wednesday June 27, 2018 @04:41PM (#17411680)
> In my opinion it isn't. Collecting data through the use of big data methods (or whatever you want to call it) has nothing to do with science and everything to do with tool use

There's way more to computation and psychology than just machine learning and big data. Those just happen to be trending presently.

Re:Toward Psychoinformatics: Computer Science Meets Psycholo... by RangerScience on Wednesday June 27, 2018 @02:57PM (#17410790)
> computer science is less of a science and more of a tool / method

Hmm. Not sure I can agree. What would you call things like the Complexity Zoo? (Computational science? Part of mathematics?)

Re:Toward Psychoinformatics: Computer Science Meets Psycholo... by mettamage on Wednesday June 27, 2018 @04:17PM (#17411470)
It was appended with "for other disciplines"

I'm not so much talking about the field itself but more how it is used for other disciplines. Mathematics is a discipline too and has a lot of academic work behind it but using an ANOVA or a t-test isn't scientific/academic in the mathematical sense. It's just a tool. The mathematical idea of an ANOVA has already been discovered, mathematics moved on.