Is there any reason for computer science not following the scientific method? No, I don't mean for things like benchmarking, neither, because obviously, if you do that right, it's just combinatoric statistical analysis anyways. Software engineering is not computer science.>inb4 what do you think computer science is
Because it's a creative endeavor and not empirical science? Are you retarded?
computer science is constructive, it makes things, if it can't make them, then they don't exist, i think it's a better way to do science than the endless analytic bullshit we see in physics
>>108835320yeah, I get it, that computer science is basically an applied mathematics field, I would post the stupid gif of hal abelson if I had all of the time in the world to go play fetch. do you really think that every other scientific field is that way? I mean things like that so-called computer scientists aren't actually ever going to be capable of doing the needful, and that's basically doing trillions of adjustments on large-scale neural networks to actually empirically, systematically demonstrate tangible boundaries for their processes. are you touched in the head, or are you just mommy's special little boy?>>108835321yeah, because there aren't a billion people by now who haven't reinvented the wheel and made hello world then inserted a string formatter function or method into their experiments. that's not science, that's called engineering.
>>108835321I love how every dipshit has an opinion on physics research now. Let’s hear your hot take on what’s wrong with the state of the art in hep-th then anon.
>>108835817Physics has failed to model anything realistic in like 50 years. Physics still can't correctly model optical phenomena that we have leveraged since the 1700's in building things like high-resolution single-lens microscopes.Physics has tried extensively to model molecules. Protein folding, in-silico saturation mutagenesis scanning, in general mutation stability assessment, etc. All of it is garbage with 0 relation to real life even if you use the most expensive and expansive qm systems.
>>108835812no its not engineering because its playing with concepts like data structures and algorithms, whether those things are applicable is irrelevant
science also dont follow scientific method. what exactly youre refering to? you know that proper refering is a scientific and amorphous statistical slop isnt? start from yourself and then maybe scientific method flourishes
>>108836081it doesn't sound like you have the first idea of what engineering even is. I refuse to elaborate any further>>108836102read TAOCP
>>108835303But it's following, why do you think it's not?
OP you are retarded holy fuck.
>>108835303>Software engineeringyou will never be a real engineer
>>108835303>be called computer science>not about computers>not about science>instead about mathmotherfuckers
>>108836447Based The Art Of CP enjoyer
>>108836515according to mythbusters it's only science if you have a methodology and write down your results>>108836559I asked you a simple question>>108836565you ever engineer an original thought? didn't think so>>108836567computational mathematics didn't sell so well on the course catalog I guess because CS is basically library science and half of the people involved are LARPers doing information science anyways>>108836570>>>/lit/
>>108835948All of this is total rubbish and just indicates a lack of understanding of what it is you’re even talking about. Biophysics is well known to be complicated and tricky. This has nothing to do with your weird claim none of it has been successful since the 70s. The claim we supposedly still don’t understand optics is downright stupid and wrong. What is it that you actually understand that’s been done since the 70s that wasn’t up to your standards? Maybe you can email the authors and have them make a retraction.
>>108836703https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/bookseries/abs/pii/S107656700900007XI can hear you cry your physicnigger tears over this already.
>>108836663> it's only science if you have a methodology and write down your resultsBut they do. Can you give examples when don't?
>>108836739>2009>cited by 9LolI’ll ask again, can you explain the issue you have with any major result obtained since the 70s, since your claim was it was all worthless? Or you just don’t know enough to even start?
>>108836785street shitters and greasy basement dwellers.
>>108835303>if you fuck up civil engineering the bridge falls down and everybody dies>if you fuck up mechanical engineering the car kills shaneqa and her 4 screaming toddlers from 4 different fathers>if you fuck up software engineering some loser ops need to wake at 2am to spend 30 minutes fixing itthere just isn’t much of a downside of doing things badly when it cones to software engineering
>>108836814I accept your surrender
>>108835303>engineering is not scienceYes. And?
>>108837212>computer science is not sciencecan you even refute this?
>>108835303What the actual fuck is that baby definition of tensors. Is this what computer scientists teach each other?
>>108837535No, it's what pajeets in highschool are looking up on youtube as part of their muh ai phase.
>>108837546OP here I got the pic because it's the only thing that defines what a tensor is in plain english without doomscrolling google images till my eyes start bleeding for a question I had in >>>/g/lmg that was literally asking this same question. nobody knew what it was so I just posted a pic of a quarternion to some anon who got filtered by precalculus or whatever. anyways, mathematics is way better other than it actually being a natural science. but I digress, and the topic of this blog post is saying you're 100% right. these niggas rarted and shit.
>>108837173apologize.
>>108837647Read around the topic, it is you that must apologize.
>>108835303Because computer science isn't a science. It's more a branch of mathematics.
>>108835303>Is there any reason for computer science not following the scientific method?Because the majority is fucking retarded.
>>108836447>read TAOCPdone. what would be the next instruction, professor?
>>108835303Because everything that happens on a computer is already repeatable by design and nature you moron. The science part is figuring out and proving phenomenon type shit like cosmic radiation fucking with storage medium.
>>108837546>pajeets in highschool are looking upWell in that case good for them. I had no idea what a tensor was in high school other than its existence. Had to wait until junior year of college to learn it on a general relativity course.
>>108837846Yes, it's the only good thing AI ever did for the world. It's similar to how I learned about that kind of stuff at 10 because I wanted to maek gaems.
>>108835303tensors are multilinear mapsthey have NOTHING to do with bases (coordinate systems)
>>108837173>”modern physics is fake!!1!”>can’t explain a single problem you have (because you doesn’t understand what you’re talking about)It always happens like this lol, guys like you are a dime a dozen
>>108838510>can't read>no counterevidence>no argument>just tearsevery time
>>108837755wait for the next two volumes
>>108838797nta see >>108837647
>>108835303Give us an example of what a testable experimental hypothesis in computer science would look like
>>108836663It's not a simple question it's faggot pseud question that gets a bunch of embedded presumptions(definitions) wrong.
>>108840154H1: Only faggots and trannies use leenux
>>108840035See >>108837720
>>108840154How about this for a hypothesis? "Attention is all you need"Retard
