Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

spott

Alternatively, you don’t “prove” things in biology, you just provide evidence for them.

Proof implies a level of certainty that doesn’t exist in biology.

View on HN

In fact you don't prove anything in science. You merely fail to disprove something.

in the “natural sciences”

Do we have innatural ones?

Is computer science a science?

Of course not. It's a branch of mathematics. Always has been.

„A branch“ - so we are back to trees then?

Mathematics and computer science are both in the category of formal science.

Yes, it’s a formal science.

The other category of science is called formal science.

Is proving something internal to a system of ad-hoc rules that cannot (to the same standard of proof) be proven to have any correspondance with the natural world really proving something? Sincere question.

I think so, yes. You start with axioms, and the proof follows from those.

You can argue whether that’s interesting or not, but IMO it’s as much a proof as anything can be, and IMO it’s very interesting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com