That's a narrower argument that the one I wanted to make, which was that CS is not programming; it's theory/research/practice more like the traditional sciences.
Whether it's a science or not is not as clear-cut as you claim [1]. There is argument about this, like about many things claiming to be "science". Here's a relevant quote from Wikipedia, attributed to Newell and Simon:
> "Computer science is an empirical discipline. We would have called it an experimental science, but like astronomy, economics, and geology, some of its unique forms of observation and experience do not fit a narrow stereotype of the experimental method. Nonetheless, they are experiments. Each new machine that is built is an experiment. Actually constructing the machine poses a question to nature; and we listen for the answer by observing the machine in operation and analyzing it by all analytical and measurement means available."
This does seem to leave out the more "mathy" part of CS, which isn't about building machines at all. For the record, I think CS is science.
Hard disagree. CS education doesn't have business at its core, but science. It's all about systems design, theory, formal verification, requirements gathering, math, logic, etc. It's neither about (primarily) business nor coding concerns. You probably don't need CS for those.