The scientific method evolved for centuries and comprises of comprehensive mechanisms for testing, validation or correction of any theory or assumption (or hypothesis). The researchers of sciences use scientific method for acquiring knowledge, which is elaborately explained in this wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The scientific method comprises of powerful mechanisms for validation and correction such as falsifiability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability. Such mechanisms for correction or validation are extremely valuable for gaining deeper and deeper insights and wisdom about the ultimate objective reality.
Relentless efforts to advance each of the (scientific or engineering) disciplines, competition between researchers, and having mechanisms for validation, whose test every theory must withstand or fail. This would expose accepted theories or published conclusions that are result of sloppiness, bad luck and even fraud; and swept away by the advances of the field. In fact, we can gain more wisdom and deeper insights from exposing such flawed theories.
The researchers of mathematics have comprehensive mechanisms for testing, validation or correction of any theory or assumption (or hypothesis). For example, researchers of mathematics (or logic) rely on set of axioms to build axiomatic systems. If there is an error in any of the axioms, the research results lead to contradictions or inconsistencies. The axioms are corrected or replaced to eliminate contradictions or inconsistencies. Even of the contradictions may not detect the flawed axiom, the contradictions are a clear indication of a flaw in one or more of the axioms (or theories or hypothesis).
Mathematical methods (or logic) have in-built mechanisms for detecting flawed axiomatic assumptions, theories or hypothesis. For example, if an axiom is flawed, applying series of steps (that are strictly in complacence with established mathematical methods) by relying on such flawed axiom sooner or later leads to glaring contradiction or unacceptable inconsistence (e.g. such as 0 = 1). The flawed axiom can be detected by retracing the steps (by making sure each step is correct and strictly in complacence with established mathematical methods), which certainly leads to the source of the contradiction or inconsistence. This knowledge and insights are used to make necessary corrections or discord the flawed axiom.
Computer science can never be a real science and software engineering can never be a real engineering, without mechanisms for correction or validation. How do we know the validity of each of the accepted theories or published conclusions (e.g. definitions for components, CBD or neural networks) in the BoK (Body of Knowledge) for computers science and/or software engineering?
Unfortunately, researchers of computer science (software) made no effort to device such corrective mechanisms, even in cases where such corrective mechanisms are readily available. My years of effort to propose objective facts and mechanisms for correction or validation have been not only ignored but also I have been snubbed and insulted.
Isn't fraud, if mechanisms for correction or validation are ignored even when such mechanisms for correction or validation are available (or proposed)? For example, no error (e.g. in axiom, theory or hypothesis) can ever be detected, if there are no mechanisms for correction or validation. If any discipline that is not using (by choice/ignorance or it is impossible to use) scientific methods, it is a Pseudoscience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Many soft sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science) try to use scientific methods, even if it is not possible to strictly conform to the scientific rigor. It may be impossible to strictly follow methods for validation in certain disciplines. Isn't it fraud, if researchers refuse to use any methods for validation, even such methods are available (e.g. proposed) and possible to gain valuable knowledge for substantial advancement of the discipline (or field)?