> CS has zero to do with computers

This is extreme. Computer architecture is undoubtably a field of study within CS.

Many parts of computer science are mathematical, but many parts are closer to physics or chemistry than mathematics. You can run experiments and form hypotheses in computer science.

Computer architecture used to be and imho was properly a part of electrical engineering.

“Computer science” was never really scientific. Algorithms, symbolic logic, natural languages, computational complexity, finite model theory and compilers, after that it’s what, grinding gears?

Can you name one significant experimental result in computer science? Nothing comes to my mind.

The fields of human-computer interaction, and UI/UX design have experiments.

Testing various compiler optimizations for practicality, etc. are also commonly done.

You list natural language, and natural language processing is a highly experimental / empirical field.

I saw this paper’s abstract and was reminded of your comment: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10559

> Experimentally, we comprehensively compare the behavior of ICL and explicit finetuning based on real tasks to provide empirical evidence that supports our understanding

Lambda calculus was an experiment, I'd say. Wolfram's rule 30 too, though granted it's not that significant.

You have to do a bit of science whenever something unexpected comes around and you have to fit it into what you know.

There’s literally a whole section covering if CS should be considered math, engineering or science.

I do not think Stanford doesn't have a clue... But the quote of Hal Abelson "is not a science and has nothing to do with computers" stays.

CS is to computers as geometry is to surveying.

I used to hold this view but I’ve come to accept that the study of computer systems is absolutely a part of computer science.

Computer architecture, operating systems, etc. are about computers and they are topics in computer science.

Incidentally, yes, but CS topics can be applied to any kind of “process”, not just computerized ones.

Anything that absolutely requires a computer is necessarily a practically-oriented activity, and is therefore computer engineering.

Well you could say that physics is also math. But conversely, would geometry for example be considered computer science? If not, then computer science is not identical with mathematics.

Something that occurs to me is often when creating programs to run on a computer system we don't know exactly how they will perform in advance, because of the complexity of the hardware and software interrelations within the system. And so we run them and measure the results. That's definitely science.

CS would not exist without computers. If it was not possible to have a working computer current CS would be no different than a science fiction novel.

Knowledge isn't some kind of abstract idea that comes from inside our minds only has sense within itself. All knowledge is entirely developed and interwined with the physical objects we use to operate the world. The same goes for math. It is only because of our past and future operations in the real world that math has any sense.

> The same goes for math. It is only because of our past and future operations in the real world that math has any sense.

You would be astonished(and perhaps appalled!) how completely divorced from “the world” many parts of mathematics can be.

And that would explain the difference in the number of people who have studied basic arithmetic, versus, for example, number theory.

>computational systems

It doesn't say computers. Untyped lambda calculus is a computational system. You've just misinterpreted the text.

If we can only describe them in terms of other fields, I'd say math is like law and CS is like physics. In math you can kind of say whatever you want, but in CS it's meaningless unless it's in the context of some sort of computer. I'd say there's also a lot more stake to the organizational principles you have in CS, where in math it really is symbol shunting at the end of the day.