Hahahah… You need to go back and study some science my friend. "...take it as fact"... What you just described is called 'religion'.
The fundamental basis of all science is ‘it is just a theory’ and the stated point of peer review is to try and prove the theory wrong. That is the scientific method.
And no, I dont subscribe to religious thinking. I have published peer reviewed papers on Quantum Physics, Special Relativity, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering…. and wait for it… Computer Science.
I have also built, and sold, commercial software. And I know from experience that what you need to build commercial software is NOT what they teach you in Computer Science. To be clear, that is not a problem with Science in general. It is a problem with Computer Science in particular. If Larry Ellison had as you ignorantly suggested ‘taken it as fact’, instead of trying to prove it wrong, then he would not have invented Oracle.
I suggest you engage in a little scientific thinking, and instead of trying to defend your obvious mistakes, learn something new. That religious, dogmatic, defense of old ways of thinking is at the heart of the problem with Computer 'Science'.
That symptomatic behavior comes from that demand for more software causing the industry to need to dumb down software development to widen the net of available developers... and that is really what Computer 'Science' is about. It attempts to teach theories and practices that are to be taken as gospel, which is a shortcut to thinking and problem solving. Computer 'Science', which is not really science at all, has more in common with trade schools teaching officially sanctioned ways of doing things ... stamping out standard parts on an assembly line... than it does with Science or Engineering that teach critical thinking and independent problem solving.
Now there is nothing wrong with trade workers. There is something wrong with Computer 'Science' schools misleading their customers into believing they are being trained for something they are not. It would be like a trade school teaching people how to work on Boeing's assembly lines claiming its curriculum in "Aerospace Science" was preparing them to design aircraft.
Coming full circle, you have repeatedly demonstrated this inability to think critically, because of your training to mindlessly repeat the dogma you were taught. You have shown why I almost never hire someone with a CompSci background to do software development. As Cicero put it, me pedica.