🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxwzEo.Gv4@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

   |> What attributes do they [anthropology, sociology ... etc.]
   |> possses that makes them a "science" 
   |> that computer science (sic) does not have?  (Maybe we need somebody
   |> who considers them as a science to answer this question).

   The classical answer here is straightforward and centers around the
   use of the hypothetico-deductive method and deductive-nomological
   explanations.  ... and that one attempts to formulate *empirical*
   theories in these disicplines all argue that they *are* sciences.
   [deleted]

Ok, here's my laymans translation of that :-

A science is any subject where practitioners trawl over data trying to
find a description can justify the data (and from which predictions
can be made about any future data).

Is that acceptable?

   The degree to which (or the specific areas in which) computer science
   exhibits these characteristics is still pretty unclear to me.

Under my definition, I would venture that little of what goes on in a
CS dept. would be classed as a science (not even the example I gave
previously regarding routing).

bevan