This post is inspired by the blog post Why physicists need philosophy. Richard Healey, the author of the post, rightfully argues against the mainstream belief among top physicists that physics has an answer for everything. He argues that philosophy is still needed to answer some of the aspects that physicists are still unable to answer. Stephen Hawking is so wrong when he considers philosophy to be dead.
The first time I’ve met a computer I was 10. It wasn’t love at first sight, but very soon the relationship turned into a steady long-lasting one. While other kids of my age were playing games, I was trying to program small games. I’ve been a programmer since then; I’ve got my first programming full-time job while I was still 18 – that was over 15 years ago. I’ve later become a proper software engineer, and then a computer scientist (with a PhD in programming languages).
Over the years, I’ve gathered some knowledge about programming and computer science. At the same time, I’ve come to know much better the things that I don’t know, even in fields in which I’m supposed to be an expert (the so-called Socratic paradox).
This post is about what I know, what I don’t know, and about how to know if I know a subject. And above all, about the process of knowing. Mostly related to computing.