On the "Science" in Computer Science

Neil DeGrasse Tyson once made an argument underlining the difference between a political/courtroom debate and a scientific debate. And according to him, the crux of the difference lies in the possibility of an agreement between the two participants based on mutually agreed, objective, observable facts. That is, for example, in a scientific debate, the two participants may make their arguments and can follow up with discussion on what missing data or information can lead to a resolution. So, either one of them will be wrong or both of them will be wrong. And that is competely okay.
But that hardly ever happens in a courtroom.

The admission of being wrong, of being of a mindset that enables two conflicting sides to accept the missing piece of the puzzle, of continuously upgrading their beliefs based on evidence and most importantly, this behaviour being the default behaviour, is crucial to "do science". There is a sort of anti-competitiveness in it.

Any software developer/computer scientist will agree on this. Because we do it tens of times in a single day. We might look at some faulty behaviour and come up with a list of possible suspects, we eliminate those suspects one by one till the real cause of issue is found, continuously updating our beliefs. It is often a group endeavour and there is no place for ego in the process.

Therefore, while it's true CS is a science because it's a study of computation and information and what not but also because it takes a scientific approach and attitude to perform in the field.