>>13917338I don't consider any single undergraduate in any field a scientist without having anything proper to show for it. A scientist or "expert" should have actual weight to it or else you get a systematic problem because in modern society they are considered our "priest class" and when anyone can be a priest you get a bunch of morons telling other morons what is correct.
Computer science is not about computers in the sense of what you think of when you think about a computer, and the scientific method is barely used other than in the empirical study of algorithms where asymptotic analysis is used to study their complexity and memory. As far as I can tell.
CS is a thing in and of itself but it's a bad name for it, it's a form of abstract engineering if anything that does not 'really' have a base in the physical world. The abstract engineering entails "what can an automata be ordered and told to do", CS is the knowledge of commanding a process in a system using abstract symbols built from primitive types, built from something that can represent information. A small component such as a nand gate exists, from that logic gates, registers, ram, a processor and more are built. With a power source this system can use Shannon units, encode opcodes, build assemblers and so on. And after that is where CS lies, what can you tell this complex system to do through orders using symbols, states and so on. Really the only limit is imagination as long as the system is complex enough to be able to simulate any automata.
It can be called computation, automata study, abstract engineering, applied discrete math, and so on.
