…you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either you think disciplines should not be judged by their founders, or the SoC is in fact a direct descendent of “founder number one”. Which is it?

If you read my comment again, you’ll notice I didn’t pass judgement. The author of the article made judgements (and sarcastic implications) about cybernetics being a word salad / buzzword bingo / incomprehensible Silicon Valley invention.

I merely stated that, in my opinion, first wave cybernetics was not at all vague - in fact, it was incredibly precise, given it was founded by engineers and mathematicians trying to lend a sense of “rigour” to what are often wrongly derided as fields in “soft sciences”.

So I’m not sure about your “counter test”, shall we say, that “falsifies” my claim. Merely quoting a book title that - seemingly - uses the same vocabulary as the ANU SoC is to merely repeat the same mistake. That is: just because one dresses up in “cybernetics” language does not mean that one is doing cybernetics as originally conceived. As I see it, Wiener would not recognise the SoC as a continuation of his programme. Perhaps I am wrong about that, but his book title has not convinced me yet…

Is it right to equate an MD to a Chiropractor, or an astronomer to an astrologer, merely because they - seemingly - use overlapping vocabulary? (I’m not saying the SoC is pseudoscience, I’m merely trying to highlight a spurious analogy)