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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 15:17:59 +0200 Message-ID: <06gc90d9ngam5ju9pmj5q0akdjpp4j7tif@4ax.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.119) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083589418 19108298 I 212.79.194.119 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:205 Date: 2004-05-03T15:17:59+02:00 List-Id: On Mon, 3 May 2004 11:46:27 +0000 (UTC), Georg Bauhaus wrote: >Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >: But we can build cars, so physics and chemistry are indeed sciences. > >But some people feel better after visiting an astrologer, so >astrology is indeed science? No because, there is no astrological engineering. On the contrary, it is well *known* how to build an average car. >: The result of that experiment shown that Marxism is not a science. > >If existing societies claiming to be "Marxist" show that socalled >Marxism is science, what definition of science is that? a Marxist's one (:-)) >Even with simple formal methods you face the HALTing problem, among >other obstacles. Hybris aside. >Formal science only deals with formal abstractions. You cannot prove that a theory is right, but you can disprove it, if it allows that. "Good" sciences allow such experiments, which in turn leads to engineering. "Bad" sciences are not verifiable, those are not sciences at all, but merely religions. >Are you saying that a "successful" building of a political framework >for a society is an indication of "science" in political reasoning? Yes, if "political science" tells how to do that. Then, well, we could take say, Iraq, and engineer it to be a decent country. So far we cannot. >David Gries has written "The Science of Programming". An excellent book, BTW. >The book >is not about everything that a scientist might consider >important in a scientific study of programming, is it? Yes, but things Gries mention are fundamental for would-be computer science. >So given software engineering, which you seem to think is an >indication of software science, what exactly is the subject >of that science? It should be. The problem is that both this "science" and this "engineering" are in disarray. Programmers despise CS, academics laugh at programmers while business ignores both. >:>And I don't take it for granted that medicine will be more successful >:>as soon as it is praticed by body engineers. >: >: Are body shamans any better? > >AFAICT, neither of them restrict the background of their techniques >to nothing but scientific engineering, or to nothing but "spirituality". >What's more, a western doctor may treat a patient more, the same, >or less successful than a shaman, in any single case. They might even >work together. Medicine is far from being a "good" science. Yet, it is lightyears away from shamanism. Instead of speculating on single cases we should consider objective statistics of national health care in *any* western country. Note the word "any", which explains why medicine becomes a science. -- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de