That's because most "software engineers" aren't actually engineers. They're more systems designers and analysts with a bit of programming knowledge and a little bit of a computer science background. Being a real engineer is very different.
That's not "computer science", you're talking about programming or software engineering, which are workers building what computer scientists have figured out. There are very few computer scientists. They are basically specialized mathematicians. Think Dijkstra. Google has most of them chained up in a basement somewhere writing sharding algorithms or something. It's confusing because many programmers get CS undergrad degrees, but they are starting to make "software engineering" degrees.
It's true that CS doesn't use the scientific method, but neither do library science, "scientific socialism", etc. Popper isn't the be-all end-all.
Pretty sure you could word things similarly for every field that's around. I've yet to find a proper explanation for "software development is not engineering"
I think this is not true. When interviewed, people who have crossed over from ChemE/MechE/etc say it's engineering. We just iterate a lot faster because compiling is cheap and most software failures are cheap.
I think we rely too much on stereotypical ideas of what "real engineers" are doing, which can't be defined and generally don't stand up to scrutiny. For instance, is designing a processor in VHDL computer engineering or merely programming?
In this case I'm pretty sure it's some C level clown that pushed this through even if everyone told them "it's not ready" or "you need a larger model for this to work".
The people on the floor rarely get heard, they only get the blame.