4 ms·

The scientific method is not really a core part of computer science in the same way that it's not really a part of mathematics. Sure, there certainly is a such

The scientific method is not really a core part of computer science in the same way that it's not really a part of mathematics. Sure, there certainly is a such thing as experimental mathematics and using simulations and experiments to guide mathematical intuitions, but you can't directly use the outcome of experiments to prove a theorem. Computer science (as distinguished from software engineering or computer engineering) is about what's possible given a certain model of computing. It's really just a kind of math, and is not affected by what's possible in this universe. (Though what we choose to focus on certainly is, just like math.) "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - Dijkstra "Computer science is not about machines, in the same way that astronomy is not about telescopes. There is an essential unity of mathematics and computer science." - Fellows

jacoblambda 8y ago
I would argue that the scientific method isn't as much about using experimental results to prove theorems as much as it is building a model and repeatedly verifying/modifying it until it is consistent. In that aspect experiments are not dissimilar from tests in software and examples in mathematics. They serve as a single point that demonstrates a certain behaviour of the final model. Sure in pure mathematics you can derive solutions using pure logic however if a model looks sound but an example shows up that disagrees with the model then there is obviously a flaw somewhere. Similarly in physical sciences, experiments are data-points that constrain a model of the system. As physical sciences unfortunately don't have the luxury of using pure logic to derive models, they are stuck with using just these "tests". As you said computer science is more or less a subset of mathematics. Because of this I would say that they are both true sciences, they just have a few extra tools at their disposal compared to the rest of the sciences.

jacoblambda 8y ago

I would argue that the scientific method isn't as much about using experimental results to prove theorems as much as it is building a model and repeatedly verifying/modifying it until it is consistent. In that aspect experiments are not dissimilar from tests in software and examples in mathematics. They serve as a single point that demonstrates a certain behaviour of the final model. Sure in pure mathematics you can derive solutions using pure logic however if a model looks sound but an example shows up that disagrees with the model then there is obviously a flaw somewhere. Similarly in physical sciences, experiments are data-points that constrain a model of the system. As physical sciences unfortunately don't have the luxury of using pure logic to derive models, they are stuck with using just these "tests". As you said computer science is more or less a subset of mathematics. Because of this I would say that they are both true sciences, they just have a few extra tools at their disposal compared to the rest of the sciences.