This isn't an agreement or disagreement with the essay (I tend to lament the current sorry state of CS research but not necessarily for the reasons stated in this essay). But I would like to throw out that (a) before there was chemistry and physics, there was alchemy and that was hardly based on the scientific method, (b) computer science is becoming more ingrained in hard sciences via simulation and visualization, and (c) there is no law that says the scientific method can't be adapted to include information as a first-class primitive like stars, particles, energy, and inclined planes (among other things). Maybe (a) and (c) are the same point and we are muddling our way through as informatic alchemists at this stage of the field in the sense of CS being defined by the scientific method.
As a CS PhD, I like the essay and appreciate that it raises points to think about. I never really thought about academics as bureaucrats in that way but, as a former academic who left the hallowed halls for the reasons you describe much better than I could formulate, I think I agree with you on that point.
As a CS PhD, I like the essay and appreciate that it raises points to think about. I never really thought about academics as bureaucrats in that way but, as a former academic who left the hallowed halls for the reasons you describe much better than I could formulate, I think I agree with you on that point.