This definition is from a non-scientist. And I think this is an absurdly over-specific and over-naturalist definition. #5 in particular is annoying given that Popperism is an ideal that essentially no scientific fields meet (including physics).
Rather, I think the most reasonable definition of a science is very simple: a discipline whose primary technique for gathering new results is the scientific method.
Anyway, given either definition, I don't see how Cryptography is a science.
Rather, I think the most reasonable definition of a science is very simple: a discipline whose primary technique for gathering new results is the scientific method.
Anyway, given either definition, I don't see how Cryptography is a science.