Wright et al.

Is GIS a science? While the question appears fairly benign it seems the implications of the answer are significant.
One aspect of this debate I find most interesting to me is that I had not ever considered GIS to be a science before reading this article. I remain skeptical to be sure. In my first semester of university I took the class Intro to GIS which for the most part taught students how to use the GIS as a tool. Theoretical knowledge was provided but in my opinion the main emphasis – and the most interesting parts – were the labs where we used applied GIS to real-world issues. While more advanced GIS courses go more into depth regarding the processes, tools, rules, and theories that allow GIS to be a useful I have always found the most important part of these courses to be the labs. To me this suggests that while it is important for us to understand how GIS works, it is more important for us to be able to operate a GIS.
On the other hand, GIS is a tool available to scientists to help them increase their knowledge of the world around them. If GIS helps scientists in the search for truths then why should it be denied the designation as a proper science?
I still remain skeptical about this issue, in my gut I feel that GIS is a tool. The scientific aspects of GIS seem, to me at least, to be provided by computer science, mathematics, geography, remote sensing, and other disciplines.

GoOutside

Comments are closed.