While I don’t particularly agree with the sentiment, those in the field of Computer Science could be argued to be “scientists”, though often not in the classical sense. As a Computer Science major myself, I would never consider myself a “scientist” in the classical definition of the term. Those involved in actual research, yes, though that does not describe me despite the title of my Bachelor’s. I would consider those involved in the theoretical side of Computer Science to be more akin to mathematicians, as most of the theory is based in mathematical proofs and models (take for instance the field describing formal computational models as a means to defining how computers operate, and how effective specific algorithms are in that context). Though I could understand the argument that those involved heavily in the theoretical side of Computer Science may be considered scientists, given their similarity to theoretical physicists. In that sense, there is also active experimentation to test hypotheses about algorithmic runtime. It’s a fascinating niche of Computer Science that I studied briefly in university, but likely will not be pursuing in the future.
Generally those involved with active development of commercial software don’t fit into that category, though. It’s very much a question of semantics.
It really depends on the individual case. There are many CS professions where the title “engineer” or “scientist” is incredibly accurate. I believe that is a minority of course, and further depends on how broad your definition of “cs people” is. There are specialties within the incredibly broad field of computer science that require education in classical engineering, as well as specialties that focus on research and experimentation with the scientific method.
While I don’t particularly agree with the sentiment, those in the field of Computer Science could be argued to be “scientists”, though often not in the classical sense. As a Computer Science major myself, I would never consider myself a “scientist” in the classical definition of the term. Those involved in actual research, yes, though that does not describe me despite the title of my Bachelor’s. I would consider those involved in the theoretical side of Computer Science to be more akin to mathematicians, as most of the theory is based in mathematical proofs and models (take for instance the field describing formal computational models as a means to defining how computers operate, and how effective specific algorithms are in that context). Though I could understand the argument that those involved heavily in the theoretical side of Computer Science may be considered scientists, given their similarity to theoretical physicists. In that sense, there is also active experimentation to test hypotheses about algorithmic runtime. It’s a fascinating niche of Computer Science that I studied briefly in university, but likely will not be pursuing in the future.
Generally those involved with active development of commercial software don’t fit into that category, though. It’s very much a question of semantics.
I’d never admit it irl or to anyone I know because it’s petty. But it bothers me when cs people refer to themselves as engineers.
Referring to themselves as scientists would seriously be a step past that.
It really depends on the individual case. There are many CS professions where the title “engineer” or “scientist” is incredibly accurate. I believe that is a minority of course, and further depends on how broad your definition of “cs people” is. There are specialties within the incredibly broad field of computer science that require education in classical engineering, as well as specialties that focus on research and experimentation with the scientific method.