According to Wright et al., the GIS: tool or science debate is an important one in the daily lives of geography departments. The article uses the online 1993 GIS-L discussion as the starting point for this “tool versus science” debate. The article claims the “length and intensity of the discussion made it clear that the ‘tool versus science’ debate sparked an interest among many scientists, technicians, and practitioners, whatever their discipline” (347). Although I wouldn’t call “64 postings from 40 individuals in 8 states and 6 countries” (347) “intense” (although things were different in 1993), the “tool versus science” debate is valid nonetheless.
In the GIS-L discussion, I think that the people who claim that GIS is a science understand the arguments of the people who believe GIS is a tool, and simply disagree with them. However, I wonder if the opposite is true. Many of the “GIS is a science” arguments are more intellectual and difficult to understand, and given the informality of the GIS-L discussion, it may not be too far-fetched to think that at least a few of the “GIS is a tool” people do not fully understand the implications that the “GIS is a science” people are making. I include myself in this bundle since, after reading the article, I am still on the fence since I have trouble understanding many of the “GIS is a science” arguments myself. Could GIS be both a tool and science? The author asks if “doing GIS” is “doing science”. It seems to me the answer to this would be “sometimes”. I would think that it depends on what you are doing with GIS. If you are using it in ways described in the “GIS is a tool” side of the GIS-L discussion, then, for your use, GIS would be a tool. If you are using it in ways described in the “GIS is a science” side of the GIS-L discussion, then, for your use, GIS would be a science. I don’t quite understand why GIS cannot be both, or maybe I haven’t fully understood the debate.
– Solfar