[pathtracer]

> Personally, I find CS, in trying to validate itself as a "science" (which it is not, no scientific method, just like maths isn't science, but still valuable)

Science can mean different things to different people. While in the english speaking world it is often equated to "natural science" this not the case for all languages.

Take the famous Gauss quote for example: "Mathematica regina scientiarum est et theoria numerorum regina mathematicae est."

In german, CS (Informatik) is widely regarded as a "structural science".

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strukturwissenschaft

[guitarbill]

I'm weary of people throwing out Latin quotes, or trying to apply Latin or Greek to English. It's difficult, as words change meaning (my favourite example being "techne"). Gauss' quote translated is "mathematics is the queen of the sciences", but without context obvious worthless. He could have been joking, I for one haven't read his whole letter.

It's a bit disingenuous to bring German into this, luckily I speak it also. I would dispute that "science" == "Wissenschaft". Literally translated, "Wissenschaft" is "creating/establishing/managing/develop knowledge". In the strictest sense, "science" must be translated as "Naturwissenschaft". There simply isn't a direct mapping. Interestingly, "structural science" in English means something different than "Strukturwissenschaft", so even the example you gave undermines that "science" == "Wissenschaft". Wissenshaft encompasses more than science.

I find a useful test if something might be a science is check it doesn't have "science" in the name :)

But let's be clear, just because a field isn't a "science" doesn't diminish importance or value. I am sick of seeing this argument. But it is extremely important in the way you approach teaching that field.

I actually think it gives you far more flexibility and interesting ways to approach a field. Scientific method is very rigid, for good reason. But fields that don't employ the scientific method need not adopt this rigidity, especially if they have solid formalism behind them. Just don't try and dress it up like a science. E.g. I hate Big-O, or the almost religious importance CS puts in it. It's good formalism that can't be directly applied to reality. It isn't a scientific result. But that's a rant for another day.