>So, we are acknowledging that there exist parallel non-overlaping equally valid notions and definitions of science.

False. I said I acknowledge linguistic issues that can cause confusion. There is overlap but there is NO contradiction. There isn't a case where there are two conflicting definitions for a single term.

>Menawhile, you seem pretty hung up on the "In Science, nothing can be proven" part of a whole long argument as to why CS shouldn't be referred to as a science. Perhaps that distinction is not useful or relevant in context?

Meanwhile you seem hung up on me setting up clear and categorical distinctions as not useful or relevant.

Let me make it clear why your hang up doesn't make sense. The entire topic of this thread is an argument for "why CS isn't math." I am staying on topic and saying that CS IS a MATH and NOT a SCIENCE. Thus because I am on topic the distinction is ON context and HIGHLY relevant. You can disagree and state your points but saying my point isn't relevant is false.

It's not a valid argument. I literally stated the premise is false and stated the reason why, and you stated the reason is off topic as if I changed the topic .