>>12372359>there is an absence of physical modeling based in rigorous experiment and quantitative theory>there is a lack of explanatory and predictive power regarding the behavior of physical systems.This is actually untrue though. Read any engineering or CS paper for both theory and application.
CS is closer to mathematics that *can* be part of science, but this claim that there are no rigorous experiments and a lack of predictive power holds little to no weight, especially in an academic culture where every result is asked to be formally PROVEN before it is implemented.
If we're interpreting your words correctly, almost all the work done in mathematical physics, especially that relating to statistical mechanics, holds little to no weight scientifically, even though it holds the predictive and explanatory power. Feynman's issue was one of misplaced expertise, not pedagogy.
This argument is basically a red herring to try and dismissing CS and engineering in one fell swoop as not "real STEM" which to these people registers as science and associated mathematics. This is pretty hilarious given the amount of results from CS that have actively been used in science at large, or even the results in CS that actually contribute to core scientific theory (random walks and percolations come to mind)
