While reading Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near, I stumbled upon a quote attributed to computer scientist Edsger W. Dijkstra that made me pause, not because of what it said, but because of how it was used.
The Disputed Quote
Kurzweil cites Dijkstra as saying: “Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.”
It’s a clever aphorism that sounds exactly like something Dijkstra would say. There’s just one problem: the attribution is disputed, and the original source remains elusive.
Searching for the Source
I dove into the Dijkstra archive at the University of Texas, which contains his extensive collection of EWD manuscripts. Despite searching through his papers, I couldn’t find this exact quote. Wikiquote also lists the attribution as disputed.
Could Dijkstra have said it? Absolutely. Despite being a world-renowned computer scientist, he famously avoided using computers for his work, reportedly owning one only to read email and browse the web. For him, computer science truly was about ideas, not machines.
But the lack of a verifiable source matters—especially in a book making grand claims about the future.
Context Matters: Why This Quote Feels Out of Place
Kurzweil places this quote in a chapter discussing exponential growth, Moore’s Law, and paradigm shifts. But the connection feels forced. The Dijkstra quote speaks to the philosophical nature of computer science as a discipline. It doesn’t illuminate anything about exponential technological progress or the coming singularity.
This seemingly minor misplacement reveals a larger issue with The Singularity Is Near: the blending of rigorous scientific facts with personal predictions that lack the same level of substantiation.
Two Visionaries, Two Approaches
The contrast between Dijkstra and Kurzweil is instructive:
Edsger Dijkstra: An unconventional theoretical scientist known for mathematical rigor and precision. Every statement in his EWD manuscripts was carefully reasoned and documented.
Ray Kurzweil: An unconventional futuristic engineer and inventor. His predictions are bold, optimistic, and often based on extrapolating current trends.
You might expect Dijkstra to be dry and academic, while Kurzweil would be the more engaging personality. But here’s the surprise: the biggest difference between their work isn’t their subject matter or their ambition—it’s humor.
The Missing Ingredient: Humor
Dijkstra’s writings are filled with wit, self-awareness, and intellectual playfulness. He could be cutting in his criticism, but always with a touch of humor that acknowledged the absurdity of certain positions. This humor wasn’t just stylistic. It was a sign of intellectual honesty and humility.
Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near, despite its grand vision and fascinating ideas, takes itself entirely seriously. Every prediction is presented with confidence. Every trend will continue. Every obstacle will be overcome. There’s little room for doubt, irony, or the acknowledgment that futurism is, by nature, speculative.
The Problem with Unquestioning Optimism
This lack of humor—and the self-awareness it represents—makes Kurzweil’s predictions less credible, not more. When you can’t laugh at yourself or acknowledge the limits of your knowledge, you risk becoming a prophet rather than a scientist.
Dijkstra understood that computer science required both rigor and humility. He documented his sources, admitted when he was speculating, and never confused his hopes with inevitability.
Kurzweil’s work would be stronger if it borrowed more from Dijkstra’s approach: not just his ideas, but his intellectual honesty.
What We Can Learn
The misattribution (or at least unverified attribution) of the Dijkstra quote is a small detail, but it’s emblematic. It suggests a book that prioritizes narrative momentum over scholarly precision. That’s not necessarily wrong for a work of futurism, but readers should understand what they’re getting: a compelling vision more than a rigorous prediction.
When reading about the future of technology, it’s worth asking: Is this backed by verifiable evidence, or is this someone’s optimistic extrapolation? Are the sources documented? Is there room for doubt?
Dijkstra would have insisted on all three.
Further Reading:
Related posts:
Feel free to share this via:
