Are they scientists? No.

They oversee R&D programs. They might not be good scientists, but they do a very good job running an R&D intensive organization. Unless your definition of science is "writes papers nobody reads about stuff no-one cares about while being payed tax dollars", industrial R&D can also be science. Of course, Facebook is a terrible example. Google would be a much better one. Intel or Boeing would be even better.

There'll be people who say that computer R&D isn't science, because it's just gimped math or hand-wavy pretend engineering, but they'd be the same people who say that most of the stuff computer science academics do is also crap.

Scientists seek knowledge, entrepreneurs seek profits. One has to collaborate with the other a lot. Scientists and Entrepreneurs can equally well produce crap, with scientists being more methodological about it. It's a symbiotic relationship, not a power play.

Is computer science not a science? Someone should alert all the major colleges of your discovery.

Computer science is a science. Engineering and programming are not. This is not at all a value judgement, just a fact. Studying/creating/improving logic and type systems is doing science, creating Facebook is not.

The wording "computer science" is too much overloaded. In French we have even less luck with the word "informatique": everything from studying category theory to using Microsoft Word is called doing "informatique"… :-/

You know the old joke in rnd "an engineer is just a scientist with thumbs"

So, building a bridge does not require science. And building the algorithms for google also does not require science.

Its as though we need a new word for these non-science related sciences.

EDIT: I thought of it! Vanity Science.

Bridge building is accepted as engineering. Engineering is not science.

Brunel could probably not have formulated the Theory of Relativity. Einstein could probably not have "built" the Great Western Railway.

The application of science is not science.

So scientists create science, but non-scientists apply science? If a scientist were to ever apply science, perhaps like those working at CERN, they would ultimately become non-scientists? Wait, engineers _built_ CERN applying science, but scientists _use_ CERN ... using science.

I think the only difference is that some scientists test science, and some scientists apply science. Is a doctor a scientist or an engineer? He's both testing and applying. Semantics are sometimes pretty stupid (or usually always), and honestly that's the only reason I'm pursuing this silly argument.

Go and do some research into the difference between science and engineering. Then go and do some research into the difference between theoretical and experimental science.

Just because you use science, doesn't mean you are a scientist. The application of science CAN be science, but often isn't.

Pointless trolling is always pointless.

I'm not trolling, I just think the semantics involved in this discussion are stupid.

Scientist: A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

Seems rather open ended.

By your definition everyone is a scientist.

What has Mark Zuckerberg done that can be called science.

You should also cite your references - The Free Dictionary isn't particularly credible.

I would argue that finding out new things or developing a new model for some systems is "science" whether it is done by a "scientist" or a "engineer"

For example you might not know that Brunell developed the design of efficient propellers for his ships.

and navvies "built" the railways Brunell just designed every thing

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only crazy person here.

So try building a bridge without a good knowledge of the science of structures - cock it up and you get a Tacoma narrows.

You should take a second and actually read what's been written.

Business is not science

You're right, its an art.

Apparently, they are not scientists.