One of the most interesting debates within the discipline of GIS is whether it should be categorized as a “tool”, employed to solve problems in other disciplines; or whether it should be considered a “science” in its own. Although the article is relatively dated, Wright et.al bring up some interesting points about the debate. It is interesting to note that from its inception, up until the time period during which the large debate that was sparked on the GIS-L listserv in 1993, GIS was employed almost unanimously as a tool in order to advance a specific focus. However, this huge exchange of opinions by scholarly sources, along with the rapid development of technology, has greatly changed the field of GIS.
Miller does a great job of summarizing and analyzing the GIS-L debate of 1993, which at the time was an unprecedented interaction on an online forum between scholarly individuals and their colleagues around the world. It is fascinating to see, from the provided excerpts, how the argument developed over time. Before considering a solution to the argument, It is vial to define what “science” actually is. This, however, is problematic because science can be defined in so many ways, and sometimes incorrectly! Miller identifies science as “a logical and systematic approach to problems that seek generelizable answers”. But does a complex field such as GIS fit into this category? Miller hits the nail on the head when he concludes that GIS represents a continuum between tool and science. However, it is clear that out of all the ranges on the continuum, GIS must be considered a science because it encompasses the analysis of issues raised by the use of GIS.
– Victor Manuel
Tags: GEOG 506