Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site eosp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!princeton!eosp1!robison
From: robison@eosp1.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Information sciences vs. physical sciences
Message-ID: <427@eosp1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Dec-83 23:01:55 EST
Article-I.D.: eosp1.427
Posted: Mon Dec 12 23:01:55 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Dec-83 02:24:16 EST
References: <2416@ncsu.UUCP> <84@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton, NJ
Lines: 29

The definitions of Science that were offered, in defense of
"computer Science" being a science, were just irrelevant.
A field can lay claim to Science, if it uses the "scientific method"
to make advances, that is:

Hypotheses are proposed.
Hypotheses are tested by objective experiments.
The experiments are objectively evaluated to prove or
	disprove the hypotheses.
The experiments are repeatable by other people in other places.

The process of proving or disproving hypotheses is done with
reference to axioms, a well-defined frame of reference,
other proved hypotheses, and methods of reasoning that have been
themselves developed scientifically.

There are many other disciplines out there that are developing
fascinating information (Computer Science is one of them), but that
doesn't make them sciences.  Say, if you are working in an exciting
discipline, don't be embarrassed that it isn't a science!
(It isn't a profession either, but that's another subject.)

Here's a very useful rule of thumb, by the way:  ANY field that needs
to have the word "science" in its name, isn't.

				- Keremath,  care of:
				  Robison
			          decvax!ittvax!eosp1
				  or:   allegra!eosp1