🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BEVAN.92Nov19195201@beluga.cs.man.ac.uk>, bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) writes:
|> 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?

It's pretty close, I think, but incomplete.  I would expand it to include
an account of what a *theory* is, how the theory is related to the data,
and how theories are related to other theories.

|>    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).

This was the view with which I started.  And I still think that "little" is
correct.  How little, and how central, I'm not sure.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm