search

CaptainSifff / paper_teaching-learning-RSE

The teachingRSE project: "Teaching and Learning Research Software Engineering"
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
23 stars 20 forks source link

266 critical thinking #275

Closed mhagdorn closed 1 week ago

jpthiele commented 3 weeks ago

The initial commit aligns with the goals we stated in #266 especially in terms of a skill aspect for RSEs and relates to verification and validation of software (which we should maybe state explicitly?)

The second commit however, reads not as a value we have but as a critique of society as it is currently. So I don't feel it fits in the scope of a paper about teaching RSE skills and competencies.

michelemartone commented 3 weeks ago

Hi @jpthiele -- can you point out to any societal critique in that second commit? Please also see https://github.com/CaptainSifff/paper_teaching-learning-RSE/commit/b55efa6259c0c0c48f83110fc6fac63a806a641f#commitcomment-141301491 and the discussion in there.

jpthiele commented 3 weeks ago

The sentence about decision makers has a negative connotation of that being categorically wrong.

michelemartone commented 3 weeks ago

There is no statement that cost reducing is bad: that is neither stated, intended or implied.

But the decision makers in management position are often in that corner (the need to reduce costs), so it's a reality, which motivates automation and processes increasing productivity. Without that we wouldn't be at this stage of prosperity, so if you want, is a very good thing that that pressure exist, as a side comment of me.

michelemartone commented 3 weeks ago

I did some rephrasing in https://github.com/CaptainSifff/paper_teaching-learning-RSE/pull/275/commits/946272b8db413f5761bd6ff91f371050f619ef21

I am not content with the positioning of those paragraphs of mine, especially given its size.

But one issue at a time. @mhagdorn @jpthiele I still miss your observed "societal critique" in the original text, but that's obsolete now. What about now?

mhagdorn commented 3 weeks ago

I think the entire paragraph reads as a social critique because of its breadth. I don't have a problem with this particular direction of critique but I don't think it belongs into this paper. The way I see this paper is that we provide interested people with a starting point of what we consider to be fundamental to RSEs. Ethics, philosophy of science and epistemology are huge topics that we can't go into (we don't even satisfy the software engineers).

michelemartone commented 3 weeks ago

I agree this paragraph is framed pretty generally..

We started that we wanted to motivate the need for the RSE to have the ability (or skill?!) to assess when the result from the application of an advanced, reasoning like method (read: something like an "AI"-based assistant) is wrong. Correct?

If and only if yes, how far is this paragraph from that? e.g. Perhaps we can "tighten" it to our subcases?

CaptainSifff commented 1 week ago

closing in favour of #279 Discussion now continues over there.