Proof That Computer Science is Not Even Soft Science. What I realized ... the probability of predictions (increase chances or degree of repeatability) or improving ...
Proof That Computer Science is Not Even Soft Science
What I realized must be shocking to any real scientist. I got to share this: What is the only difference between the hard sciences and the soft sciences? The hard sciences deal with objective facts and reality such as nature and properties of physical things or demonstrable facts or concepts about physical phenomena. The soft sciences deal with subjective things and trying hard to see, if they can find a way to measure and/or quantify the subjective things, for example to improve our ability to predict the subjective nature or phenomena.
'Measure what can be measured and make measurable what cannot be measured.' … Galileo Galilee
The hard sciences deal with objective things and reality that are measurable, repeatable, demonstrable and predictable. The soft sciences deal with subjective things and unpredictable realities (e.g. influences of religions, culture, charismatic leaders, technological progress and human instincts such as greed, fear, love, hate, or perceptions etc., on economics, societies, regions or politics etc.), which are hard to measure, predict or repeatable. But goal is to employ proven scientific methods, principles and processes to acquire knowledge such as to gain insights and understanding, for example, improving the probability of predictions (increase chances or degree of repeatability) or improving the approximation of measurements.
The fact is: soft sciences call themselves sciences, because their goal is to employ proven scientific principles and processes to gain knowledge and insights about the subjective things and unpredictable phenomena or reality (e.g. complex influences of religions, cultures and human instincts such as greed, fear, love, hate, or perceptions etc., on economics, societies, regions or politics etc.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
One thing in common for hard sciences and soft sciences is: Both are trying to gain insights and knowledge of nature of things and reality by employing proven basic scientific principles and processes. The difference is: hard sciences deal with objective things and phenomena, while soft sciences have to deal with subjective things and unpredictable phenomena or reality (e.g. complex influences and interactions of religion, culture and instincts such as greed, fear, love, hate, or perceptions etc., on economics, societies, regions or politics etc.).
On the other hand, computer science not only ignored reality and facts but also blatantly violated basic scientific principles and processes when dealing with quintessential objective things such as nature and properties of components for CBD or neurons for AI. Isn’t it insult to soft sciences, if any one insists that computer science is a soft science, because soft sciences neither ignore reality and facts nor blatantly violate basic scientific principles and processes.
If untested and undocumented beliefs were to be detected at the very core/root of the body of knowledge of any hard science, it would be shocking and scrabble for answers to find out how could such error slipped through and could stay unexposed for decades. Even soft sciences must follow scientific processes and principles. It is a violation of the scientific process to rely on undocumented or untested belief (opinion or assumption). The soft sciences must document each of the beliefs (i.e. well informed opinions or educated assumptions) only after testing each educated belief (or well informed opinion) by making sure that the well informed belief doesn’t contradict known reality or obvious facts.
Today it is an obvious fact: the existing definitions for so called software components and concepts for so called CBSD paradigm are in clear contradiction to the reality and facts we know about the physical components and concepts of CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products. How could computer science be a real science, if it has such flawed beliefs at the very core and has been evolving for nearly 45 years on such foundation?
Any research effort for advancing engineering or technology must have sound scientific foundation (i.e. a body of knowledge). The research effort would be wasted and no meaningful technological progress is possible, if there are flawed beliefs at the core (or root) of the scientific foundation (e.g. if the body of knowledge has been evolved or created by relying on hidden untested beliefs).
