From: "Stephan Kämper" <Stephan.Kaemper@...>
Date: 2002-05-14T17:09:09+09:00
Subject: Re: OT:is software eng an art?

Chris Gehlker wrote:
> 
> Physics wins, 

Not neccessarily....

> which probably surprises no one. Economics universally comes
> in second. Psychology comes in about the middle. Geology ranks down with
> Library Science and Computer Science. Astronomy comes in dead last (but then

?!? Did you mean Astrology, perhaps.
Astronomy, applies physical priciples to, well to almost everything outside
Earth.

> I don't think they found a journal for voodoo). Biology is a non-science in
> general but some sub fields, genetics and micro-biology, are as 'hard
> science' as physics. 

The more classical parts of biology are no less of a science...

> Other disciplines, like chemistry, have many subfields
> but they tend to all be very quantitative and empirical.

Huh? Physics is highly empirical, too. How else would you falsify a theory
if not by an experiment?
How else would you come to the conclusion that a new theory is neccessary if
not by experiments yieling results not fitting the forecasts of a theory?

I don't think this discussion is too terribly useful...

> ...so I'm just assuming that he follows the conventional
> pattern for physicists.

.... which, btw, are as diverse, contradictory and somtimes _very_ strange.
They are opinions, expressed in terms of very personal views (call it
'theory of science' if you like...)

Happy debating...

Stephan