My opinion is that "Software Engineering" is an artisan trade. What it isn't is based on science. What is rigorous is usually based around theoretical mathematics.

Let me put it like this: there are very very few designs in software where there are limitations that are based on intrinsics. Whereas if you talk with a chemist, it's very clear that there are actual properties underlying what they do, and these physical properties do things like go "bang" when you screw up. Or if you're building a circuit, you use the underlying equations of the resistors and other components to drive the design. Very little of that exists in computer science.

This doesn't make what we do immoral or bad or demeaning. But in my opinion, this conflation with physcial-based sciences produces a confusion of the mind.

I'm prone to consider computer science "algorithmic mathematics" and quality software engineering "software craftsmanship". It reminds me far more of house building than circuit design.

I'd say artisanship, craftwork, architecture, or industrial design are all much closer to what we do than either of those.

Sorcery. It's poetry that has to actually accomplish something.

Writing.

Math. That explains the endless debates on aesthetics, the difficulty of measuring productivity, and the enormous spectrum of productivity.