Computer science: Math vs engineering?

The professor is not comparing Math versus Engineering. He's saying that Computer Studies belong under Engineering and not Science. Computing is married to Math at it's highest abstract level.
The practice of "programming" is engineering in purpose but not in method. This is because it provides a utility for people. However the methods of engineering are largely different from what we have in the computing realm.
I think the professor doesn't think Math belongs under Science, but instead is a field of its own as well.

Science is knowledge, searching for knowledge.
From a totally personal point of view i always say that If you do not have scientific curiosity you will fail as a computer scientist. Thus, Programmers are scientists by definition.
You can be a good computer scientist and a somehow bad engineer. An amazing programmer is the one who can find balance in both and actually excels in both (in engineering and science).
Wether it is math, physics, or any other "branch" of applied science they are based on knowledge and they all have to be used together in order to gain knowledge (like in computer science or black magic :p)

So why is there Computer Science and Software Engineering? I think CS is the study of theory and grabbing knowledge about the subject. SE is a kind of implementation rather than theory. Right?

MrClass wroteSo why is there Computer Science and Software Engineering? I think CS is the study of theory and grabbing knowledge about the subject. SE is a kind of implementation rather than theory. Right?

In computer science you actually apply the theories and most job titles are software engineer while the position holds a BS in computer science.

I believe word "engineer" are more respectable.
And i think for example in MIT, yes, it will matter, Math or Engineering, in other universities, especially that are not in top of best uni list, education programs usually outdated, and only useful in them, basic building blocks of logic they give.

ZeRaW wrote

MrClass wroteSo why is there Computer Science and Software Engineering? I think CS is the study of theory and grabbing knowledge about the subject. SE is a kind of implementation rather than theory. Right?

In computer science you actually apply the theories and most job titles are software engineer while the position holds a BS in computer science.

Actually I heard this from many professors: Software Engineers are not Computer Scientists (with a mocking tone too)

Science is knowledge, searching for knowledge

This is totally over generalizing. Searching for knowledge is scientific. Doing science is the application of the scientific method to expand human knowledge. A PhD Dissertation in science is supposed to be a breakthrough, and should be an addition to our body of knowledge as humanity.
Litmus test of doing science: Are you creating hypotheses and then testing them? Yes! Bravo, scientist.[/b]

However, just because you have curiosity, doesn't mean you're a scientist, in the strict academic modern sense. We don't want Philosophers calling themselves scientists, do we?

Engineering is the application of knowledge towards a service of human kind. You can't do that without having a taste of science of course. However, engineers take a whole lot of simplifying assumptions. They care about science out of necessity, not on principle. They're less about discoveries, and more about inventions.
Litmus test of doing engineering: Do you specialize in inventing solutions to problems? Bravo, engineer.[/b]
Computer Engineers are closer to Electrical Engineers. Their obsession is about creating entities that implement or have the same properties as those of arithmetic. Litmus test? Positive.

Math is the crown jewel of sciences but not a science itself. It's the language and the platform of exactness. The more abstract, the more mathematical. You can be sure as hell that if you're not talking in Math, that you're not doing Science. The other way around is not necessarily true. Mathematicians excel at creation. Their most important creations are ones that create models whose properties coincide with nature. However they also exceed beyond that and do all kinds of weird gay stuff.
Litmus test of doing math: Do you try to strip all connections to reality and reach axioms to create bodies of theories. Bravo, Mathematician.[/b] - I frankly don't know exactly what Mathematicians do. LSD?

In the strictest of senses, computation is merely arithmetic. A branch of applied mathematics. Nonetheless, it has found applications on all levels of science and in engineering. It really does deserve a branch of its own. Computation.

Computation can be broken down to two domains that are almost totally as disconnected as science and engineering with lots of analogies holding. Theory of Computation, Application of Computation. Fun thing about theory of computation is when they start dealing with programs as strings and input them into other programs and shit like that. That's not your average programmer. Those are the scientific types gone into the field of computation and transformed into something totally new. Programmers are the lowliest of creatures. The bitches of the IT world. They're like engineers in their purpose, but without their rigor neither their necessity for knowledge (anyone can copy paste scripts and code together). They're (maybe not so coincidentally) the most labored on creatures in the domain.

@ arithma, science started as philosophy and evolved into what we have now.
you cannot have "science" without starting by a quest for knowledge. of course curiosity alone is not enough you need to pursue and find answers, and isn't this what science is all about finding answers? [knowledge].
You can be sure as hell that if you're not talking in Math, that you're not doing Science
unless you are considering pure reasoning as math then I have to disagree, you are over-generalizing, look at natural science, and other fields where math is not the base.
The only common factor in all science fields is "seeking knowledge".

Philosophy is most definitely not science. They may have been in a muddy ball together sometime ago, but we're not in ancient Greece anymore.

I think you're conflating reasoning with science. Reasoning and common sense underlies everything in life. It's such an underpinning in everything that talking about it is usually a matter of psychologists.

All natural sciences at least do a whole lot of statistics. The scientific method itself is rooted in statistics. Inference out of statistical significance. That's where my statement came from.

Again, what I am trying to say, seeking knowledge is a necessary factor in doing science, but is not enough alone. You have to apply the scientific method of inquiry. That's why philosophers are not scientists, neither are engineers.

I really don't think it can be any simpler than that.

it's a field of its own (EWD 1036)

EWD suggests that computation is strictly an extension of formal symbol manipulation in which you derive a solution out of a formal specification of the problem.
Counter examples: google car drive algo. Google page ranking. Most of artificial intelligence (neural nets, genetic algos)... Right out creative use of machines for artistic purpose.

Alright, personal views aside: EWD didn't say it was a field of its own. He just said that it's a radical change in mathematics (to him the two must converge as something new).
I showed above counter examples from modern problems how that view falls short. However the EWD's view is really beneficiary in an education setting, which was the purpose of his article.
Sorry to drag along.