[sharpneli]

Considering that Social Sciences are in midst of a replication crisis with no end in sight I'm not that sure they have anything useful to offer, except perhaps how to best do p-hacking to get results that one wants.

The claim that computing is a social science because it has big effect on society is simply bollocks (This was explicitly claimed in the article, heck it had a subtitle "Why Computing Is a Social Science").

The effects of computing to society definitely is social science. But social sciences have exactly zero to offer on how to, as an example, define an upper bound for certain algorithm.

Just as physics has massive impact on the world the actual act of doing physics had nothing to do with social sciences. How on earth does social sciences help me to solve some particularily nasty partial differential equation? How the results are used are yet again part of social sciences as that talks about what happens to society, but the actual physics is completely out of it.

And as I said at the start, the track record of Social Sciences is not too good. I'm quite doubtful they can even say anything valid on the actual matters that fall under it.

[daveFNbuck]

I agree that computer science isn't a social science, but I think the social aspects of computer science have a lot more to do with what computer science grads do than upper bounds on algorithms. Most of what we're doing is about making products more attractive to customers.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Considering that Computer Sciences are in a software crisis since the 70ies, with no end in sight I'm not that sure they have anything useful to offer, except bloat, sidechannel attacks, cargo culting and enabling of BS-jobs, which they promised to eliminate.

I really don't get your point.

[sharpneli]

We are having conversation with the engineering result from applying CS and physics.

Seems to work relatively well.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Could also be said about (some) social sciences (in some contexts).