[savolai]

It’s sadly a repeating phenomenon that when anything too humanistic is proposed here, the argument is often dismissed. Here, as just linguistic or even just philosophical. The actual argument gets lost, and nobody here seems interested in the actual papers the author is referencing. To me, the meat of the argument is:

What do the fields/papers (whih the author IS referring to, very concretely) have to offer to the discussion about where the field of CS, and its business applications, should be going?

This way we don’t have to discuss category boundaries. The concrete implications of the arguments are there to evaluate.

That the actual substance is dismissed here out of hand is quite frustrating to me.

[renewiltord]

All that stuff is easy. Point of education isn’t to give you reading material you can self learn in a few months.

After all, you’d expect best performers in this field to all be from liberal arts colleges like Middlebury. And the folks there are great but it’s not like they’re superpowered compared to the Vanderbilt guys. So it isn’t some sort of game changer.

[savolai]

If all that stuff is easy then why avoid the discussion? You would think you could just tell us why the papers are irrelevant to current tech discussion, instead of just dismissing it with secondary arguments?

[renewiltord]

The stuff is easy. Telling you why it's not necessary in education is hard. But it's okay. I thought about it and I realized I’d entered a discussion I don’t care that much for. So I’ll apologize and step out. And concede if that helps.

[savolai]

It’s a matter-of-fact discussion, feel free. Thank you for the cordiality.

It seems obvious though, I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood how deep this particular rabbit hole goes.