

Computer Science Is Not a Science - kard
http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2013/1/158757-computer-science-is-not-a-science/fulltext

======
dylan-m
The author is correct. But comput _ing_ science sure is one. Yeah, I'm opening
that can of worms. There's a reason biology isn't called "microscope science."

The author's mistake is thinking that computing science (incorrectly referred
to as "computer science") is the same thing as software development, and that
it is strictly concerned with the machines we commonly refer to as "computers"
and the programming languages we use as tools. Whether that makes computing
science more or less a science is another question, of course, (though I think
the study of computing can be very rigorous). It's important to remember that
these are very separate subjects.

~~~
gizmo686
Being rigorous does not mean that something is a science. In the case of
computing science, it is (in my opinion) clearly a branch of mathematics.

~~~
slurgfest
Corollary: CS doesn't need to be a science

------
Xcelerate
I suppose to make a claim that something isn't "x", "x" needs to be well-
defined and agreed on by all. The central points of what constitutes science
aren't widely debated, but maybe the more nuanced points are.

For me, I think the most powerful definition of science is this: science is
the capability of prediction. If you can accurately predict something that
happens at a future time or in a different place, then that's all I need to
consider it science. Of course, the more powerful your prediction, the better
the science it is. Predicting the stock market based on a hunch then is very
poor science.

So does computer science make predictions about reality? Yes, it does. There's
many algorithms describing things that _will_ happen when run, and curiously
enough, we can test these by writing a program! We can even easily reproduce
these programs for other people to run.

To give an example of the more scientific nature of CS, the study of quantum
computing is almost solely in the domain of computer scientists and
physicists. Scott Aaronson, for example, is a computer science who has many
interesting things to say about it (<http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/>).

Now, the application of computer science degrees to something like a startup
may be more of an engineering task. You're not necessarily predicted anything
new; you're taking what has already been discovered and developing a practical
application of it. I'm still somewhat conflicted as to whether I consider
software engineering to be in the same category as traditional engineering
disciplines; I suppose "engineering" isn't so concrete a word as "science", so
your answers will vary a lot by person.

~~~
EliRivers
" If you can accurately predict something that happens at a future time or in
a different place, then that's all I need to consider it science."

That's an extraordinarily vast definition. I think it's so vast as to be not
just "an opinion I disagree with" but something I'd happily label "incorrect".

I can read some words on a piece of paper, put that paper down, and then
predict what words will be written on it if I pick it up again and read it
again. To call that science is, to my mind, incorrect.

I could likewise write down a sequence of numbers on that piece of paper, and
predict what they will be when I read it again. Still not science.

I could save space by writing in a mathematical notation the rules for
generating that sequence of numbers and again, I can predict what those
numbers will be in the future when I expand that notation and get the sequence
back.

I could save myself the hassle of deriving the sequence on paper by having a
machine do it for me. What I've now made is a deterministic, predictable
future event that is no more than what I described above. It's not science.

