This is an ART exhibit? It may be art, and it definitely belongs in a museum, but not because it's art.
Apple has decreed that you are in the boondocks.
You must be outside of the walled garden.
Run them over.
Knock them down.
Thin the herd.
I have seen videos of phone-toting idiots falling into fountains while looking at their phone. What's next?
Again, more ignorance...and you are neck deep in it.
I understand that you simply don't know any better.
Perhaps, when you grow up, there may be hope for you.
Well, if it is on Wikipedia it must be true. Such a great defense to your argument!
You can build an industry around anything. It still doesn't make it a science.
In the meantime some may wait for you to actually "discover" an algorithm. Perhaps some will call this activity "angel'o'sphere's folly".
Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying something doesn't make it so.
Perhaps you need to study a bit more philosophy. So-called computer science is a philosophy based on arbitrary foundations and assumptions.
Let's look at how you are asserting the opposite:
First, are algorithms invented or discovered? Algorithms can only be invented. When someone "discovers" an algorithm, where was it hiding? What form does it have? Quite simply, algorithms have no physical form so they cannot be discovered.
Second, somehow you feel that simply asserting that developing a "software system" proves that it is engineering. Quite simply, it isn't.
Since you mentioned clay---software is not at all like clay. Software does not have physical form beyond the system that was arbitrarily develop to record some aspects of it. If it does, how would you describe it?
Finally, "give me three statements about bubble sort and three about quick sort...without CS you could not do that". What does that prove aside from that people can write things about anything? If I write a tome about pixies does that make pixies a science? Certainly not!
Le'ts put this in terms you may be able to understand.
Computer "science" is an applied philosophy. In this way it is a great deal like mathematics and very unlike physics.
Engineering is applied science. Electrical engineering, chemical engineering, and running a train are true engineering pursuits.
Computer "science" is not a science---it is an arbitrary paradigm beyond the electrical engineering and physics required to construct physical computers.
Since there is no "science" in computer science, calling a programmer an "engineer" makes no sense.
This is all rubbish. It makes no sense to ask when the universe "started" or came into being. Time is an artifact inside of the universe---not the other way around.
Show me one other alternate universe. Is that so much to ask?
What else would you expect from someone who keeps insisting that he personally received a Nobel Prize---but didn't.
Michael Mann could predict that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and I would be hard-pressed to believe him.
Anti-lock brakes don't help when someone skids sideways.
So, does that mean that NASA needs to go back to the plated wire memory and tape systems like the Honeywell systems that ran the Viking and Voyager systems for decades on Mars and in space?
Really? I am beginning to wonder why I still look at
Damn that Pope Gregory XIII. He should have left the calendar as it is. It would prevent any alchemists or astronomers born on January 4 from being praised on their birthday when it gets shifted to December 25. What was he thinking! So much for papal infallibility.
To paraphrase the "spoon boy" from The Matrix:
Do not try and bend the correlation, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no correlation. Then you will see it is not the correlation that bends, it is only yourself.