2

Background

Wikipedia lists several scientific disciplines on its science article. To name a few, they are:

  1. Logic, Maths, Statistics,
  2. Molecular, Atomic, Plasma, Quantum Physics,
  3. Astrophysics, Cosmology, Stellar astronomy,
  4. Anatomy, Biochemistry, Zoology

The list is really big! One entry there is also "Computer Science". We all know the all-pervasive influence of computer science on our lives today, so it's natural to spread some rumours about it. One such "hot fact" that I frequently hear in my school is these days is the following. I wish to confirm if it's justifiable and, if so, is it true.

My question:

Among all the fields listed there on the Wikipedia page, is Computer Science the fastest growing science field in the history of mankind?

The thought process that really adds fuel to this statement is that the widespread connectivity humans have achieved today enables for faster software and hardware growth (connectivity 2G->3G->4G, better office tools, more capable tech gadgets), which in reciprocation boosts office productivity, enabling more tech growth, and the endless loop continues.

My thoughts:

I personally feel the statement is not even justified. According to me, the term "fastest growing" can have subjective implications. It's easy to note the time factor (i.e. we grew to this much in 10 years), but the magnitude of growth can be disputable.

For example, we know that agriculture formed the starting stepstone for the settled human civilization i.e. it is a very ancient science. So, can we say that agricultural growth is "slower" as compared to computer science? We could very well say that the "magnitude of growth" in agriculture has been proportionally much more than that in computer science, so the latter's actually been slower.


I personally feel my logic invalidates the statement. Though, I'm afraid there might already have been elaborate and conclusive research on this topic. So, can anyone convincingly invalidate this statement? Or if it's valid, can it be proven or disproven?

closed as off-topic by DavePhD, Oddthinking Nov 7 '17 at 12:55

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging notable claims, such as pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – Oddthinking
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Seeing how the starting point was 0 around the early-mid forties then any growth from there is boing to be bigger than growth from an already established base in the same time period! – GordonM Nov 7 '17 at 11:33
  • 1
    This site is for investigating notable claims. Where have you seen this specific claim being made? – OrangeDog Nov 7 '17 at 12:18
  • 5
    To be honest, I don't think this is a meaningful question for any site. "Fastest growing" doesn't mean much, as you have had to explain. "Computer Science" is fairly meaningless here too. Information Technology has become more popular, but that's different to Computer Science. – Oddthinking Nov 7 '17 at 13:31
  • 1
    @GaurangTandon Again, that would make it on topic elsewhere, but not here unless you can establish notability of the question. – called2voyage Nov 7 '17 at 14:34
  • 1
    Be careful about hire rates. They could just indicate a high turnaround / flux instead of actual growth. – DevSolar Nov 9 '17 at 9:58

Browse other questions tagged .