From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: "Nick Roberts" Subject: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers Date: 1997/06/17 Message-ID: <01bc76c5$85c8de60$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 249178547 References: <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com> <5n1261$qj6@polo.demon.co.uk> <19970602.433020.144E5@ai078.du.pipex.com> <5n258a$ac8$1@cnn.Princeton.EDU> Organization: UUNet UK server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet UK) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote in article ... > Actually I don't think there is any issue of personal bias here. The two > theories, as I noted before are > > Newton > newton + crocodiles > > It is objectively clear in this case which of these two is simpler. A similar > situation arises if you consider the contrast between theories based on: > > 1) standard "laws" of physics > 2) standard "laws" of physics presided over by a God who is free to change them > > These have similar predictive powers, but on a purely scientific basis, it > does not increase the predictive powers to choose 2, and it adds complexity, > so we don't generally explicitly choose 2 when we select a theory. > > Nevertheless, many scientists do in fact select 2 for their own personal > belief systems, and that does not particularly affect what they do, but > this is in the realm of faith, not science. > > As far as I can tell, the crocodiles are playing *exactly* the role that > God plays in a more conventional discussion. In other words, the bottom > line on the crocodiles is that you are free to believe in them if you want, > but it is irrelevant from a scientific point of view to explicitly include > the presence of crocodiles in the theory. At this juncture I feel I must relate the story handed down to me from University, about a famous mathematician - names are omitted to protect the innocent - who was lecturing there at the time. After giving an annual open lecture about the cosmos etc, an old lady came up to him, and said "You know, what you said about the Earth being round is all wrong." Startled, he asked "Really, madam, in what way?" "Well, you see," she replied, "really the Earth is flat, and spins on the back of a giant tortoise." Thinking he could outwit this one, he swiftly replied "Ah, but then what does the _tortoise_ stand on?" "Very clever, young man," came the reply, "but it's tortoises all the way down!" Game, set, and match. Nick :-)