Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Nick Roberts]

Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote in article
<EACHUS.97May22113850@spectre.mitre.org> an excellent example of the
necessity for realism in software engineering.

This sense of realism is excellent, and is frequently the one thing that
makes the difference between a project that succeeds, and one which fails.
And let's face it, the software industry has had its fair share of failed
projects, has it not?

However, I would argue that there is sometimes a flip side to this realism,
in the engineering sciences in general, and computer science in particular.
All (or almost all) the really great leaps forward in computer technology
have come not from great, expensive, laboratories, engaged in highly
directed (commercially orientated) research, but instead from a motley
collection of scatter-brained individuals who had _imagination_.

These 'dreamers' may never have been practical or realistic. But they
invented the science.

If someone says "what if...?", it is fine to say "nice idea, but not
today", but at the same we should not get into the habit of 'stepping on'
those who suggest ideas. I don't suppose Robert was trying to give this
impression at all, but I hope nobody wrongly gets this impression. We need
our dreamers.

Nick.
(PS: I get a bit poetic this time of night)

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Tom Moran]

> All (or almost all) the really great leaps forward in computer technology
> have come not from great, expensive, laboratories, engaged in highly
> directed (commercially orientated) research
  After thinking of Visicalc and Apple (which acually came after Wang,
Basic 4, et al), I start drawing blanks on who outisde a great expensive
lab developed great leaps forward.  Some examples, please?

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Mark Allen Framness]

In message <01bc66fa$ee7910e0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> - "Nick Roberts"
<Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes:
:>


:>These 'dreamers' may never have been practical or realistic. But they
:>invented the science.
:>
:>If someone says "what if...?", it is fine to say "nice idea, but not
:>today", but at the same we should not get into the habit of 'stepping on'
:>those who suggest ideas. I don't suppose Robert was trying to give this
:>impression at all, but I hope nobody wrongly gets this impression. We need
:>our dreamers.

Yeah sure this is all true, but we can not lose fact of the sight that science
is much closer to EVOLUTION rather than REVOLUTION, you do say this but I want
to pull out that salient point.  Scientific revolutions do happen but they are
far and few in betweeen.

In general all scientists are dreamers (the same can not be said about
engineers though).  The very nature of science demands a creative approach to
problems.  Engineering typically is a much more pragmatic discipline.  I
studied math & physics at the University.  I complained to an engineer friend
about all of the canned formulas they use and how if they would just use first
principles they can derive those and would not have to memorize all of that
stuff by rote.  His response was simply:  we do not have the time to do that,
which is true.

Pretty soon I would guess we will see the title "computer science" become a
lot less significant.  Most people will no longer work for a BS in Computer
Science, but in Computer Engineering instead.  Most computer science programs
will become servant programs to the Computer Engineering programs and those
who are studying computer science as an undergraduate plan to work for a MS or
a PhD in computer science.


Take Care!

postmaster@[127.0.0.1]  
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Spam booby trap!!!

FROM:  Mark Allen Framness
HOME:  framness@.NO_SPAM.EMIRATES.NET.AE
                           ^^^^^^^^
To reply delete the reply to address and delete the NO_SPAM from the above
address.
WORK:  m477@NO_SPAM.ugru.uaeu.ac.ae
                     ^^^^^^^
To reply delete the reply to address and delete the NO_SPAM from the above
address.

HTTP:  http://netnet.net/~farmer/index.html

To send me e-mail use the above address and delete NOSPAM from the one in the
reply field.


All standard disclaimers apply.  Anyone who says likewise is itching for a
fight!
Visit my homepage and answer the Trivial Troubles question!

/************** NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE ***********************/
For a fee of $500.00 I will proofread your unsolicited commercial e-mail.
Mailing me commercial e-mail constitutes acceptance of the above terms.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Mark Allen Framness]

In message <01bc66fa$ee7910e0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> - "Nick Roberts"
<Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes:
:>


:>These 'dreamers' may never have been practical or realistic. But they
:>invented the science.
:>
:>If someone says "what if...?", it is fine to say "nice idea, but not
:>today", but at the same we should not get into the habit of 'stepping on'
:>those who suggest ideas. I don't suppose Robert was trying to give this
:>impression at all, but I hope nobody wrongly gets this impression. We need
:>our dreamers.

Yeah sure this is all true, but we can not lose fact of the sight that science
is much closer to EVOLUTION rather than REVOLUTION, you do say this but I want
to pull out that salient point.  Scientific revolutions do happen but they are
far and few in betweeen.


Take Care!

postmaster@[127.0.0.1]  
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Spam booby trap!!!

FROM:  Mark Allen Framness
HOME:  framness@.NO_SPAM.EMIRATES.NET.AE
                           ^^^^^^^^
To reply delete the reply to address and delete the NO_SPAM from the above
address.
WORK:  m477@NO_SPAM.ugru.uaeu.ac.ae
                     ^^^^^^^
To reply delete the reply to address and delete the NO_SPAM from the above
address.

HTTP:  http://netnet.net/~farmer/index.html

To send me e-mail use the above address and delete NOSPAM from the one in the
reply field.


All standard disclaimers apply.  Anyone who says likewise is itching for a
fight!
Visit my homepage and answer the Trivial Troubles question!

/************** NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE ***********************/
For a fee of $500.00 I will proofread your unsolicited commercial e-mail.
Mailing me commercial e-mail constitutes acceptance of the above terms.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert I. Eachus]

In article <01bc66fa$ee7910e0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes:

  > This sense of realism is excellent, and is frequently the one thing that
  > makes the difference between a project that succeeds, and one which fails.
  > And let's face it, the software industry has had its fair share of failed
  > projects, has it not?

  > However, I would argue that there is sometimes a flip side to this realism,
  > in the engineering sciences in general, and computer science in particular.
  > All (or almost all) the really great leaps forward in computer technology
  > have come not from great, expensive, laboratories, engaged in highly
  > directed (commercially orientated) research, but instead from a motley
  > collection of scatter-brained individuals who had _imagination_.

   Another facet of software engineering, and actually demonstrated in
the project above.  The synchronization problem is with a new system,
and build 2 needs to provide all the capabilities of the currently
fielded system AND integrate with the new system.  Enough complexity
that you don't want any more.  But build three has room for all the
customer wants, and new technology.

   So in this case the build one design has to support evolution,
build two is required to integrate with a system that does not yet
exist, and build three has room for all the bells and whistles that
the original design allows.  Quite a spectrum, and a need to keep
focused on today's goal.

  > These 'dreamers' may never have been practical or realistic. But they
  > invented the science.

   Noting wrong with dreaming, and in fact the project manager was
reacting to features/hooks in the design which are there to support
evolution.  Our job was to convince him that they were needed--but
were for use much later.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <5m3ptf$lfp@ns2.emirates.net.ae>,
Mark Allen Framness <framness@NOSPAM.EMIRATES.NET.AE> wrote:
>In message <01bc66fa$ee7910e0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> - "Nick Roberts"
><Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>:>
>
>
>:>These 'dreamers' may never have been practical or realistic. But they
>:>invented the science.
>:>
>:>If someone says "what if...?", it is fine to say "nice idea, but not
>:>today", but at the same we should not get into the habit of 'stepping on'
>:>those who suggest ideas. I don't suppose Robert was trying to give this
>:>impression at all, but I hope nobody wrongly gets this impression. We need
>:>our dreamers.
>
>Yeah sure this is all true, but we can not lose fact of the sight that science
>is much closer to EVOLUTION rather than REVOLUTION, you do say this but I want
>to pull out that salient point.  Scientific revolutions do happen but they are
>far and few in betweeen.

Read much Kuhn? :)

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <EACHUS.97May23174831@spectre.mitre.org>,
Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote:
>   Another facet of software engineering, and actually demonstrated in
>the project above.  The synchronization problem is with a new system,
>and build 2 needs to provide all the capabilities of the currently
>fielded system AND integrate with the new system.  Enough complexity
>that you don't want any more.  But build three has room for all the
>customer wants, and new technology.

That's another pet peeve of mine: using ``technology'' with reference to
software. I've noticed that some hardware manfuacturers have been using the
term ``hardware technology'' in their marketing propaganda since it's no
longer understood what the word really means.

Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[jason hummel]

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> 
> That's another pet peeve of mine: using ``technology'' with reference to
> software. I've noticed that some hardware manfuacturers have been using the
> term ``hardware technology'' in their marketing propaganda since it's no
> longer understood what the word really means.
> 
> Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology.

i don't think so. take a look at COM and DCOM.
like that or not, it is a technology, a binary one at that.

jason hummel
-- 
/*----------------------------------------------------*/
 kill the ".++" in the reply to address.
/*----------------------------------------------------*/

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Bill Anderson]

Well, as one who spends copious amounts of time in dream states, I must
wholeheartedly agree. Software engineering may forever be a mixture of
art and science, and if true gains are to made, this is as it should be.
Art and science are intertwined to a much greater extent than most
realize, or care to admit.

Just my 2 cents.

Bill Anderson
http://www.nakedhoof.com/

Spam protection - send email to brain@nakedhoof.com

Nick Roberts wrote:
> 
> All (or almost all) the really great leaps forward in computer
> technology
> have come not from great, expensive, laboratories, engaged in highly
> directed (commercially orientated) research, but instead from a motley
> collection of scatter-brained individuals who had _imagination_.
> 
> These 'dreamers' may never have been practical or realistic. But they
> invented the science.
> 
> If someone says "what if...?", it is fine to say "nice idea, but not
> today", but at the same we should not get into the habit of 'stepping
> on'
> those who suggest ideas. I don't suppose Robert was trying to give
> this
> impression at all, but I hope nobody wrongly gets this impression. We
> need
> our dreamers.
> 
> Nick.
> (PS: I get a bit poetic this time of night)

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

Kaz said

<<That's another pet peeve of mine: using ``technology'' with reference to
software. I've noticed that some hardware manfuacturers have been using the
term ``hardware technology'' in their marketing propaganda since it's no
longer understood what the word really means.

Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology.>>

Well, like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, you can declare that
"words mean what I want them to mean" [not a literal quote :-)]
but in normal English usage, technology is a very broad word. For example,
the definitions in the OED are:

1. A discourse or treatise on an art or arts; the scientific study of the
practical or industrial arts.

2. The terminology of a particular art or subject; technical nomenclature.

So if in your lexicon it applies to hardware and not software, you are
using the word in a peculiar idiosyncratic way, which others will not
understand unless you warn them of this idiosyncrasy!

Certainly you cannot have a pet peeve that others do not share this
non-standard viewpoint!

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Craig Franck]

kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) wrote:
>In article <EACHUS.97May23174831@spectre.mitre.org>,
>Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote:
>>   Another facet of software engineering, and actually demonstrated in
>>the project above.  The synchronization problem is with a new system,
>>and build 2 needs to provide all the capabilities of the currently
>>fielded system AND integrate with the new system.  Enough complexity
>>that you don't want any more.  But build three has room for all the
>>customer wants, and new technology.
>
>That's another pet peeve of mine: using ``technology'' with reference to
>software. I've noticed that some hardware manfuacturers have been using the
>term ``hardware technology'' in their marketing propaganda since it's no
>longer understood what the word really means.
>
>Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology.

I think you have a real bias against software; you could have just as
easily have said "software runs technology". There may be a symbiotic
relationship with software and hardware. Say you have a tic-tac-toe 
game. Now, they have hardware tic-tac-toe processors (one made out of
tinker toys is at The Computer Museum, in Boston). You can also use 
software to create on. If you did a sort Turing test with the two, you 
would not be able to tell the hardware one from the software one. You
can look at the software as sort of an abstraction of the hardware. 
Then, it would represent a technological break through (just as the 
stored program concept was). So, software as a whole *has* to be 
technological. 

In addition, every software program could be recomposed as hardware.
It would not be modifiable (I don't just mean firmware EPROMs, but 
that actual logic gates and analog systems could, in theory, replace 
any program) but you could have a hardware equivalent. In my mind, 
this makes the whole software/hardware distinction somewhat artificial.
Future generations may even start to view technology as being primarily 
*software* and basically "virtual" in nature.

You can define technology to mean just hardware, but software may just
be plastic hardware. A lot of network and data communications algorithms
and protocols get wired up as hardware for speed, in which case there is 
no software to discriminate against at the lower levels.

-- 
Craig
clfranck@worldnet.att.net
Manchester, NH
BBN has the brightest bit-heads on the planet. -- David Goodtree

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

Tom asks

<<  After thinking of Visicalc and Apple (which acually came after Wang,
Basic 4, et al), I start drawing blanks on who outisde a great expensive
lab developed great leaps forward.  Some examples, please?>>


Algol-60
B-trees
parallel computing (Illiac)
time sharing 
virtual memory (U Manchester)

That's just a few off the top of my head, there are undoubtedly lots more ...

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Craig Franck]

kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) wrote:
>In article <5m859v$2qr@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
>Craig Franck  <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>I think you have a real bias against software; you could have just as
>>easily have said "software runs technology". There may be a symbiotic
>
>I don't think I have a bias against software! You might only perceive
>that if you think that hardware is somehow superior, in that the job
>of a hardware designer carries more prestige.

I think they are both equally important. I just thought of "real" 
technology as being more important (like "real" science as opposed
to say, political science or some branches of psychology that don't
get the same amount of respect.)

>>You can define technology to mean just hardware, but software may just
>>be plastic hardware. A lot of network and data communications algorithms
>>and protocols get wired up as hardware for speed, in which case there is 
>>no software to discriminate against at the lower levels.
>
>Digital logic still isn't technology. It's really a form of software. You can
>change the underlying technology without changing the logic, and obtain the
>same behavior, modulo a difference in performance. A data register made of flip
>flops or an address decoder made from combinational logic can be done up in
>TTL, CMOS, ECL, vacuum tubes or using water pipes and valves.  The essential,
>abstract behavior is totally separate from the implementation technology.
>
>Unless you work in marketing, you wouldn't call an OR gate ``disjunctive
>technology''. You see what I'm getting at? Sort of?  :)

That you do not feel digital logic is technology is telling. Perhaps it
is more a matter of technique or represents progress of some other sort.

(I don't think calculus is "technology" but represented an advancement of
mathematics when it was invented by Newton (or that Leibnitz fellow)). 

So, a NAND gate is not technology, but transistors and the ability to 
photograph millions of them on to something the size of your thumb is.
If that is what you mean, I think I can grasp the distinction. (We just
need to come up with some other word or catchy phrase for the ad people.)
:-)

-- 
Craig
clfranck@worldnet.att.net
Manchester, NH
BBN has the brightest bit-heads on the planet. -- David Goodtree

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

Kaz says

<<Digital logic still isn't technology>>

Since you are using the word technology in such a bizarre and unsual way,
perhaps you could post your definition so we have some chance of understading
what you are talking about.

P.S. Please do NOT expect other people to use the word in the same way, go
to the dictionary to understand the way that everyone else uses the word!

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <5m859v$2qr@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
Craig Franck  <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>I think you have a real bias against software; you could have just as
>easily have said "software runs technology". There may be a symbiotic

I don't think I have a bias against software! You might only perceive
that if you think that hardware is somehow superior, in that the job
of a hardware designer carries more prestige.

>You can define technology to mean just hardware, but software may just
>be plastic hardware. A lot of network and data communications algorithms
>and protocols get wired up as hardware for speed, in which case there is 
>no software to discriminate against at the lower levels.

Digital logic still isn't technology. It's really a form of software. You can
change the underlying technology without changing the logic, and obtain the
same behavior, modulo a difference in performance. A data register made of flip
flops or an address decoder made from combinational logic can be done up in
TTL, CMOS, ECL, vacuum tubes or using water pipes and valves.  The essential,
abstract behavior is totally separate from the implementation technology.

Unless you work in marketing, you wouldn't call an OR gate ``disjunctive
technology''. You see what I'm getting at? Sort of?  :)

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[tmoran]

> > ... who outisde a great expensive
> > lab developed great leaps forward.  Some examples, please?>>
> Algol-60
> B-trees
> parallel computing (Illiac)
> time sharing
> virtual memory (U Manchester)

More background please.  U of Illinois and Manchester are hardly
someone's garage.  Where were Algol 60, B-trees, and time sharing
developed?  My memory only goes back to 1961 when both Algol and
time sharing already existed.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[David Ray]

> 
> <<  After thinking of Visicalc and Apple (which acually came after Wang,
> Basic 4, et al), I start drawing blanks on who outisde a great expensive
> lab developed great leaps forward.  Some examples, please?>>
> 
> 

How about Donald Knuth?  You think maybe he made a little contribution?

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Fritz W Feuerbacher]

Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote:

: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology.

So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology?  I
believe your wrong.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[tmoran]

> > Besides ..., I start drawing blanks on who outisde a great expensive
> > lab developed great leaps forward.  Some examples, please?>>
> How about Donald Knuth?  You think maybe he made a little contribution?
  Yes, of course he made a contribution.  The question was who outside
a great expensive lab developed great leaps forward.  If Stanford
University was and is not "a great expensive lab", then what is?
  Note that until the late '70s rather few garages or spare bedrooms
contained computers.  Since then quite a few have.  I asked for some
additional examples of great leaps forward developed by dreamers in
their garage or spare bedroom, as opposed to computer professionals
working at major research universities or industrial labs.
  I enjoy the romantic notion of dreamers in their garrets producing the
paradigm shifting advances in computers as much as the next person,
but I'm having a hard time thinking of many examples.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu>,
Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
>Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote:
>
>: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology.
>
>So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology?  I

The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is
the application of physics to produce technology. 

If physics is not involved, you aren't producing technology, nor are you
doing engineering.

Examples: writing software is not engineering, and the result is not
technology, because principles of physics are not required to understand the
internal semantics of software systems. Designing a pure logic circuit isn't
engineering either, except when you have to solve implementation problems
related to heat dissipation, capacitive or inductive coupling and other
artifacts related to the _technology_.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[tstcroix]

> 
> Examples: writing software is not engineering, and the result is not
> technology, because principles of physics are not required to understand the
> internal semantics of software systems. Designing a pure logic circuit isn't
> engineering either, except when you have to solve implementation problems
> related to heat dissipation, capacitive or inductive coupling and other
> artifacts related to the _technology_.

It may not be semantically correct to refer to 'software engineering
technology'
but the programming metaphor forces the issue...

tim

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

tim says

<<It may not be semantically correct to refer to 'software engineering
technology'
but the programming metaphor forces the issue...>>


Of course it is semantically correct. You can refer to the technology
of graphology, or the technology of basket weaving, or anything else.
Technology is a *very* general word in normal English usage. Kaz is
pushing his own remade lexicon, but do not get confused by it. The trouble
with this kind of discussion of the meaning of words is that a lot of
readers of CLA are not native English speakers. It is not helpful to anyone,
but especially not helpful to that group, to use English words in a 
non-standard manner!

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93]

Tom Moran <tmoran@BIX.COM> writes:
>> All (or almost all) the really great leaps forward in computer technology
>> have come not from great, expensive, laboratories, engaged in highly
>> directed (commercially orientated) research
>  After thinking of Visicalc and Apple (which acually came after Wang,
>Basic 4, et al), I start drawing blanks on who outisde a great expensive
>lab developed great leaps forward.  Some examples, please?
>
>
    Borland Pascal, perhaps? And Unix/C maybe? (Big company, but it
    wasn't highly directed, commercially oriented research) Maybe the
    revolutionary new developments have not all come from garage
    operations, but they do seem to come more from a small group of
    really smart people who have the time to indulge in purely
    speculative endeavors instead of working on some well defined
    objective with a schedule and a budget.

    MDC

Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer    ATT:        561.796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP                           Fax:        561.796.4669
West Palm Beach, FL                             Internet:   CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
===============================================================================
    "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the
    strong - but that's the way to bet."

        --  Damon Runyon
===============================================================================

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <dewar.864731403@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>tim says
>
><<It may not be semantically correct to refer to 'software engineering
>technology'
>but the programming metaphor forces the issue...>>
>
>
>Of course it is semantically correct. You can refer to the technology
>of graphology, or the technology of basket weaving, or anything else.

Yes, you can. But by stretching the words too thinly, so to speak, they
lose their ability to discern.

>Technology is a *very* general word in normal English usage. Kaz is
>pushing his own remade lexicon, but do not get confused by it. The trouble

I don't think that the lexicon is remade. And in any case, I'm not going to
resort to the lowly tactic of changing the definitions on the fly.

>with this kind of discussion of the meaning of words is that a lot of
>readers of CLA are not native English speakers. It is not helpful to anyone,
>but especially not helpful to that group, to use English words in a 
>non-standard manner!

Such as using technology or engineering to refer to software.

Engineering is the application of *physics* (and derivative hard sciences close
to physics) to create technology. This is seems to be perfectly clear to
everyone except a minority of computer weenies who suffer from engineer envy. I
know real engineers who _laugh_ at the term software engineering.

This definition steps on some people's toes, because they can no longer fancy
themselves to be engineers. The problem is with their complex, not with my
lexicon. 

Perhaps their father wanted them to become an engineer and they have
disappointed him by becoming ``mere'' computer programmers. I have known such
cases.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <5md5q8$slo@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
Craig Franck  <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>That you do not feel digital logic is technology is telling. Perhaps it
>is more a matter of technique or represents progress of some other sort.

Yes, it's telling. The underlying fabrication of the hardware is technology.
But the abstract functioning of the circuit is not.

Look, you don't even have to comprehend simple Ohm's law to design a logic
circuit to spec.

On the other hand, there is a fabrication technology in which such circuits
are implemented.

>(I don't think calculus is "technology" but represented an advancement of
>mathematics when it was invented by Newton (or that Leibnitz fellow)). 

That's true. And that's not to say that we are deriding calculus. Only
to a technocrat is it derisive to say that something is not technology.

>So, a NAND gate is not technology, but transistors and the ability to 
>photograph millions of them on to something the size of your thumb is.

Right! A nand gate is just an abstract box that performs the service of
computing not (X and Y). It can be implemented in a variety of technologies.
This is far less true of, say, a transistor, of which there are countless
varieties whose precise behavior depends on the underlying method of
fabrication and choice of materials.

>If that is what you mean, I think I can grasp the distinction. (We just
>need to come up with some other word or catchy phrase for the ad people.)

Nah, let them stick with technology.

Now let me return to debugging some pointer dereference technology. :))

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <5md1fl$9f4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes:

> The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin
> with. Engineering is the application of physics to produce
> technology.  If physics is not involved, you aren't producing
> technology, nor are you doing engineering.

Well, that's a mighty odd constraint of the term.  What about chemical
engineering?  Or genetic engineering?  These strke me as eminently
appropriate examples of real engineering.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <dewar.864687070@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Kaz says
> 
> <<Digital logic still isn't technology>>
> 
> Since you are using the word technology in such a bizarre and unsual way,
> perhaps you could post your definition so we have some chance of understading
> what you are talking about.

I second this!  Kaz, just what in the world do you _mean_ by
"technology" anyway????


> P.S. Please do NOT expect other people to use the word in the same way, go
> to the dictionary to understand the way that everyone else uses the word!

Exactly...

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Dann Corbit]

[relevant discussion about technology snipped]
I agree with Kaz from one standpoint [in software engineering being
separate from other engineering disciplines].  In electrical engineering
(for instance) we have measured, known tolerances and capacities for the
devices we use.  Consider a resistor of 150 ohms with a 5% tolerance.  We
know how it behaves and what the accuracy is.  We also know what the
failure rate is for a given brand. We know how much power will definitely
cause it to fail.  When we build a circuit board from the design
specification we know how the circuit behaves and what its failure rate is,
for the entire board, for each component and for all acceptable inputs [we
also should know what those are].  In software engineering, we have not
progressed very far beyond the schematic.  We do not know how the circuit
performs for all possible inputs.  With complex IC's, we may not always
validate every input [as the Intel 80 bit float an the infamous divide bug
shows] but even in those cases testing is [or should be] done which
explains the inputs and outputs from a probability basis.

Consider some examples:
1.  Booch components (Ada)
2.  C Standard Library (C)
3.  STL (C++)

for an object in one of the above repositories, do we know how it will
behave for all inputs?  Do we know how it will behave, at least as far as a
probability basis?  If we should happen to know for some component, how is
this documented?  We can't pick up the spec sheet like we would for an IC
and see what the permissible voltages are and what the performance curve is
like and what probability of failure is.  When a component fails [e.g.
given an address outside of the user's allowed bounds] how does the
component behave?  Are failure modes uniform or even documented?

Tested components tend to be stamped "PASS/FAIL" and as new problems arise
are corrected.  This reactionary approach to software design can hardly be
termed 'engineering'.

I suggest that software could become an engineering discipline by formation
of a database of components, performance, accuracies and tolerances.  This
database would contain the component, the test driver, and definitions for
which environment it was tested under.  This database does not exist right
now.
-- 
Anonymous ftp sites for C-FAQ:
ftp://ftp.eskimo.com ftp://rtfm.mit.edu ftp://ftp.uu.net
Hypertext C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
C-FAQ Book: ISBN 0-201-84519-9.
Looking for something?  Software?  Algorithms?  Publications?
http://www.altavista.digital.com or http://www.infoseek.com

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[system]

kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
>Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
>>Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote:

>>: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology.

>>So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology?  I

>The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is
>the application of physics to produce technology. 

>If physics is not involved, you aren't producing technology, nor are you
>doing engineering.

Never heard Chemical Engineering, eh?

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
(somebody care to dig out the OED?)

Technology: 
1. The application of science, esp. in industry or commerce.
2. The methods and materials thus used.

Engineering: 
1. The application of scientific principles to practical ends at
	the design, construction and operation of efficient and
	economical structures, equipment, and systems.

Science:
1. [snip] investigation and theoretical explanation of natural
	phenomena
4. Knowledge, esp. knowledge gained through experience.

Is Computer Science a science?  Well, in the purest sense I suppose CS
is more akin to mathematics than Science (TM).  OTOH is anyone here
willing to cross a large bridge designed by somebody who doesn't
have a good grasp of trig.?

I am sure there are plenty of computer programmers who are closer to
bricklayers than to engineers, but there are plenty of bio grads who 
are glorified bottle washers too. (for a while anyways)

Face it Kaz, you misstepped.

Robert
specify the e-mail address below, my reply-to: has anti-spam added to it
Morphis@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <5mfcg8$n1o@corn.cso.niu.edu>,
 <system at physics.niu.edu.nospam> wrote:
>kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
>>Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
>>>Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote:
>
>>>: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology.
>
>>>So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology?  I
>
>>The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is
>>the application of physics to produce technology. 
>
>>If physics is not involved, you aren't producing technology, nor are you
>>doing engineering.
>
>Never heard Chemical Engineering, eh?

In fact I have known chemical engineers.  Chemistry is a hard natural science,
subordinated to physics. You might go as far as saying that it's a branch of
physics in some way. In a refinement of the definition, I have already included
physics as well as hard sciences related to it.

>From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
>(somebody care to dig out the OED?)
>
>Technology: 
>1. The application of science, esp. in industry or commerce.
>2. The methods and materials thus used.

Software is not the result of application of science, hence it's not
technology, according to point 1. In any case, software isn't mentioned
anywhere in the definitions, so we can only guess at the writer's
intent to include it.

>Engineering: 
>1. The application of scientific principles to practical ends at
>	the design, construction and operation of efficient and
>	economical structures, equipment, and systems.

Software is not the application of scientific principles, but mathematical
and logical principles at best. Anyway, primitive dictionary definitions are
insufficient for an erudite debate. What on earth are scientific principles? It
sounds like some dictionary authors just pulled out informed-sounding jargon
out of their hats.

The scientific method involves the formation of hyptheses that are verified
with experiment. In this sense, the current state of software development is,
ironically, somewhat scientific (picture the end user as a laboratory ``guinea
pig'', or the prototyping of software as an experiment. No engineer would build
a skyscraper as an experiment to see whether it would stand up, and hope to
debug it later).

>Science:
>1. [snip] investigation and theoretical explanation of natural
>	phenomena

We have no investigation of natural phenomena in computer science. Even
this primitive dictionary recognizes that CS is a misnomer.

>4. Knowledge, esp. knowledge gained through experience.

This is vague. There is all kinds of experienced knowledge that isn't related
to science. I won't even bother to cite examples. This definition 
is too porous to retain liquid.

>Is Computer Science a science?  Well, in the purest sense I suppose CS
>is more akin to mathematics than Science (TM).  OTOH is anyone here

According to the definitions you have just posted, CS is certainly not a
science.

>willing to cross a large bridge designed by somebody who doesn't
>have a good grasp of trig.?

I certainly wouldn't cross a bridge designed by someone who didn't have a good
grasp of trig, unless the design was independently verified to be sound and
I badly needed to get across.

Verification of software is also possible, of course, but it isn't based
on physical laws.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93]

Kaz Kylheku <kaz@VISION.CREST.NT.COM> writes:
>Examples: writing software is not engineering, and the result is not
>technology, because principles of physics are not required to understand the
>internal semantics of software systems. Designing a pure logic circuit isn't
>engineering either, except when you have to solve implementation problems
>related to heat dissipation, capacitive or inductive coupling and other
>artifacts related to the _technology_.
>
    I'd have to disagree on some points here: Writing software may not
    be engineering, but engineering can involve writing software.
    Engineering does not require the application of physics - it
    requires the application of rules. Consider the spectrum: Art,
    Craft, Engineering, Science. Art is where software used to be 20
    years ago where some highly talented people just seemed to do it
    right. Craft got introduced as the experience base was built,
    research was done etc. Some standard "tricks of the trade" (like
    structured programming, data structures, etc.) got introduced and
    you had a "craft." Engineering has built on those "tricks of the
    trade" and started to produce much more formalized rules for the
    development of software. I'm not sure we're entirely there yet,
    but we've at least started the task. The "Science" part would come
    about when we've taken the formalized rules and established them
    as principles that can be verified by measurement and experiment.
    (Sort of going from "it always works that way - trust me" to "it
    works that way because of X and I can show you by the following
    experiment..."

    As for the "technology" debate - consider that the "ology" part
    means "study" and you can see that the word is about the study of
    technique. Anybody who has a technique for doing something which
    is studied and understood is in possession of a technology. I can
    have a technology for building obsidian tipped spears or a
    technology for building silicon transistors or a technology for
    building database software. Technology itself doesn't imply
    physics.

    I think it may have been Heisenberg who said "all science is
    either physics or it's stamp collecting". Perhaps that puts
    "Computer Science" in the stamp collecting mode, but no less so
    than Botany. That doesn't mean it can't be a "science"

    Just my 2p

    MDC

Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer    ATT:        561.796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP                           Fax:        561.796.4669
West Palm Beach, FL                             Internet:   CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
===============================================================================
    "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the
    strong - but that's the way to bet."

        --  Damon Runyon
===============================================================================

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Bryce Bardin]

Rich Miller wrote:

> Not to beat a dead horse -- but you might reflect on the grace and
> endurance of Europe's numerous, many-centuries-old cathedrals.
> 

However, you might also take note that those graceful flying buttresses
were invented to cure the problem of wind loading causing the high thin
walls of the first cathedral designs to fall down.

Bryce Bardin

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <338C5770.4E1E@westdat.com>,
Bryce Bardin  <BBardin@westdat.com> wrote:
>Rich Miller wrote:
>
>> Not to beat a dead horse -- but you might reflect on the grace and
>> endurance of Europe's numerous, many-centuries-old cathedrals.
>> 
>
>However, you might also take note that those graceful flying buttresses
>were invented to cure the problem of wind loading causing the high thin
>walls of the first cathedral designs to fall down.

Yes, those graceful and enduring cathedrals are here because of a sort of
darwinian survival of the fittest. Some ad hoc designs turned out OK, the bad
ones collapsed. That's kind of how a lot of software gets developed.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <338C5770.4E1E@westdat.com> BBardin@westdat.com "Bryce Bardin" writes:

>Rich Miller wrote:
>
>> Not to beat a dead horse -- but you might reflect on the grace and
>> endurance of Europe's numerous, many-centuries-old cathedrals.
>> 
>
>However, you might also take note that those graceful flying buttresses
>were invented to cure the problem of wind loading causing the high thin
>walls of the first cathedral designs to fall down.

Wind isn't the real problem, the forces in an arch cause the uprights to
buckle outwards. Tall thin arches need the buttress to counteract this
and for general stability.

What the software engineering equivalent is I'm not quite sure! :-)

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Fritz W Feuerbacher]

Craig Franck (clfranck@worldnet.att.net) wrote:

: (I don't think calculus is "technology" but represented an advancement of
: mathematics when it was invented by Newton (or that Leibnitz fellow)). 

: So, a NAND gate is not technology, but transistors and the ability to 

Isn't "technology" a relatively new word?

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert I. Eachus]

In article <JSA.97May27162012@alexandria> jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes:

  > Well, that's a mighty odd constraint of the term.  What about chemical
  > engineering?  Or genetic engineering?  These strke me as eminently
  > appropriate examples of real engineering.

  Give it a break guys!  (Most of) you are correct that technology can
be applied to computer hardware, computer software, or even
phrenology.  In my original use, if you care, I was thinking of new
database technology, in particular OODBMSs.

  But I think it is time to put this topic to bed, or to move it to
some other newsgroup.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Fritz W Feuerbacher]

Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote:
: In article <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu>,
: Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
: >Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote:
: >
: >: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology.
: >
: >So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology?  I

: The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is
: the application of physics to produce technology. 

So I guess driving a train is not 'engineering' either?  I think your hung
up on semantics.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Rich Miller]

In article <5mfjd9$1q9@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>,
Kaz Kylheku <kaz@vision.crest.nt.com> wrote:
>
> Software is not the application of scientific principles, but mathematical
> and logical principles at best....  We have no investigation of natural
> phenomena in computer science.

You have chosen a narrow view of software, which feels like it comes
out of the 1950's and 1960's -- a time when smart people honestly
believed that mathematics and logic were the essence of computer
science. But these paradigms are of limited help with some interesting,
larger problems, e.g. omnifont, self-training optical character
recognition systems coupled with full English speech synthesis --
especially when graceful degradation in the presence of errors (so as
to let the human listener's brain help correct any errors) is required.

> No engineer would build a skyscraper as an experiment to see whether
> it would stand up, and hope to debug it later....

Designing buildings and bridges is much more of an art than you
seem to realize.  Engineering failures are closely examined by
engineers so as to improve their designs; but the accumulated
knowledge of design, plus powerful analytic tools, didn't prevent
such mis-designs as the Tacoma Narrows bridge ("Galloping Gerty")
and Boston's John Hancock Building ("The Plywood Palace" -- a
skyscraper named for the plywood sheets used to temporarily replace
popped-out windows).  You might read Levi and Salvadori's engineering
book, "Why Buildings Fall Down".

> I certainly wouldn't cross a bridge designed by someone who didn't
> have a good grasp of trig, unless the design was independently
> verified to be sound and I badly needed to get across.

Not to beat a dead horse -- but you might reflect on the grace and
endurance of Europe's numerous, many-centuries-old cathedrals.

-- Rich Miller

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

Kaz says

<<Such as using technology or engineering to refer to software>>

Rubbish! Kaz, you really should read a dictionary. I don't know if you are
a native speaker of English or not. I certainly do not know where you got
your extremely odd ideas about the meaning of the word technology. Both
from its classical roots, and from the definition in any dictionary,
technology is a VERY general word that can be applied to virtually any
systematic set of knowledge or terminology about a specific field.

Somehow, you have picked up a very bizarre view of what this word means.
Please look in the dictionary to figure out how the world uses this
word. You might particularly study the historical references in OED II.

I think you will make your arguments much more clear if you try to say
what you mean directly, rather than complaining about other people's
use of terminology.

The issue is not whether "software technology" is an OK term, that is
just an argument about words. Presumably you are trying to say
"software is different from hardware in a fudnamental way, ....
and this is significant because ....."

By concentrating on the .... you will make your point clearer.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Fritz W Feuerbacher]

Craig Franck (clfranck@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Fritz W Feuerbacher) wrote:
: >Craig Franck (clfranck@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: >
: >: (I don't think calculus is "technology" but represented an advancement of
: >: mathematics when it was invented by Newton (or that Leibnitz fellow)). 
: >
: >: So, a NAND gate is not technology, but transistors and the ability to 
: >
: >Isn't "technology" a relatively new word?

: I would imagine. The concept of technology and its diffusion through
: society started in Europe in the 16th century. This is from "The 

I sort of meant that Calculus was invented say about 300 years before the
word "technology" so if the word had existed when calculus was invented,
maybe it would have been used to describe something like "Mathematica
Thechnologitica" or something like that....

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Craig Franck]

fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Fritz W Feuerbacher) wrote:
>Craig Franck (clfranck@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>
>: (I don't think calculus is "technology" but represented an advancement of
>: mathematics when it was invented by Newton (or that Leibnitz fellow)). 
>
>: So, a NAND gate is not technology, but transistors and the ability to 
>
>Isn't "technology" a relatively new word?

I would imagine. The concept of technology and its diffusion through
society started in Europe in the 16th century. This is from "The 
Reenchantment of the World" by Morris Berman: "Technology was hardly
new in the sixteenth century, of course, but the level of its diffusion
and the insistence on its being a mode of cognition were novel, and
these events inevitably began to have an impact on scientists and 
thinkers. No longer restricted to such devices as catapults and water
mills, technology became an essential aspect of the mode of production,
and, as such, it began to play a corresponding role in human conscious-
ness. Once technology and the economy became linked in the human mind,
the mind started to think in mechanical terms, to see mechanism in 
nature. Thought processes themselves were becoming mechanico-mathematico-
experimental, that is to say, "scientific". The merger of scholar and 
craftsman, geometry and technology, was now occuring within the 
individual human mind."

[He is a very interesting author and is sort of a scientific philosoper.
He feels that people today are quite literally hypnotized into believing
a view of the world that is false, and cannot be maintained for more than
a few more hundred years before it is replaced with something else, or
we annihilate the planet and ourselves along with it. Basically, every-
thing was fine for about 50,000 years or so, and in the last 3,000 years
all hell has broken loose. Needless to say, his work is not for everybody.]
:-)

-- 
Craig
clfranck@worldnet.att.net
Manchester, NH
BBN has the brightest bit-heads on the planet. -- David Goodtree

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Nick Leaton]

Lawrence Kirby wrote:

> >However, you might also take note that those graceful flying buttresses
> >were invented to cure the problem of wind loading causing the high thin
> >walls of the first cathedral designs to fall down.
> 
> Wind isn't the real problem, the forces in an arch cause the uprights to
> buckle outwards. Tall thin arches need the buttress to counteract this
> and for general stability.

Wind is a major force on gothic catherals. You are right too about
the buckling.

-- 

Nick

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

i<<>Isn't "technology" a relatively new word?>>

relatively recent -- the first OED quote is 1614, and there are several
other 17th century and 18th centuray quotes. This in the scale of English
words probably qualifies as relatively new, but I have a feeling the author
of the above question might have a more recent timeframe in mind :-)

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

Kaz says

<<The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is
the application of physics to produce technology.>>

OK, so finally we have the most peculiar Kaz definitions of these two words.
They bear of course absolutely no relationship with the normal English
meaning of these words that you will find in a dictionary.

For example, in OED2, we have

Engineering. The work done by, or the profession of, an engineer.
Engineer. One who contrives, designs, or invents, an author, designer.
Technology. A discourse or treatise on an art or arts; the scientific
study of the practical or industrial arts.

Now you are perfectly free to use your own peculiar definitions -- you
might want to write them in some special way, perhaps <<engineering>>

to remind us all not to read them in the usual sense. But you are NOT
free to complain about other people failing to use the words in your
peculiar way!

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <dewar.864928431@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:

>For example, in OED2, we have
>
>Engineering. The work done by, or the profession of, an engineer.
>Engineer. One who contrives, designs, or invents, an author, designer.

This is vague. I invented a new recipe for making pancakes this morning,
hence I'm an engineer.

>Technology. A discourse or treatise on an art or arts; the scientific
>study of the practical or industrial arts.

Thus, since software is neither a treatise, discourse nor a study, it's not
technology.

I'm certain that this definition is what every english speaker naturally
associates with the word technology. For example, the NT operating system from
Microsoft is a ``new treatise or discourse on an art'', hence ``new
technology''.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Lawrence Kirby wrote:
> 
> In article <338C5770.4E1E@westdat.com> BBardin@westdat.com "Bryce Bardin" writes:
> 
> >Rich Miller wrote:
> >
> >> Not to beat a dead horse -- but you might reflect on the grace and
> >> endurance of Europe's numerous, many-centuries-old cathedrals.
> >>
> >
> >However, you might also take note that those graceful flying buttresses
> >were invented to cure the problem of wind loading causing the high thin
> >walls of the first cathedral designs to fall down.
> 
> Wind isn't the real problem, the forces in an arch cause the uprights to
> buckle outwards. Tall thin arches need the buttress to counteract this
> and for general stability.
> 
> What the software engineering equivalent is I'm not quite sure! :-)

How about C++ "tools" such as Bounds Checker... :-)

-- 
Remove question marks (spam repellent) from address to reply.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Kevin Cline]

fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Fritz W Feuerbacher) wrote:

>Craig Franck (clfranck@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Fritz W Feuerbacher) wrote:
>: >Craig Franck (clfranck@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: >
>: >: (I don't think calculus is "technology" but represented an advancement of
>: >: mathematics when it was invented by Newton (or that Leibnitz fellow)). 
>: >
>: >: So, a NAND gate is not technology, but transistors and the ability to 
>: >
>: >Isn't "technology" a relatively new word?
>
>: I would imagine. The concept of technology and its diffusion through
>: society started in Europe in the 16th century. This is from "The 
>
>I sort of meant that Calculus was invented say about 300 years before the
>word "technology" so if the word had existed when calculus was invented,
>maybe it would have been used to describe something like "Mathematica
>Thechnologitica" or something like that....

Evidently not true.  Calculus was invented in the 17th century by Newton.
Another poster has stated that the OED dates "technology" to 1614, so it
appears that the word "technology" predates calculus.
>

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[system]

clines@delete_this.airmail.net (Kevin Cline) writes:

>Evidently not true.  Calculus was invented in the 17th century by Newton.
>Another poster has stated that the OED dates "technology" to 1614, so it
>appears that the word "technology" predates calculus.

the 17th century is the 1600s.

However Newton was born in 1642.

specify the e-mail address below, my reply-to: has anti-spam added to it
Morphis@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats]

Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote:

: That's another pet peeve of mine: using ``technology'' with reference to
: software. I've noticed that some hardware manfuacturers have been using the
: term ``hardware technology'' in their marketing propaganda since it's no
: longer understood what the word really means.

: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology.

Surely a technology is an abstract label given to a means used to achieve an 
aim:

	Certain building technologies stop bridges from falling down.

	Certain electronic technologies allow communication between
	remote persons.

	Certain software technologies allow given sets of data to be 
	stored and retrieved in an efficient manner.

All seem worthy of the title to me.

--
Chris Russell           | Bradford Bulls - Wembley 1997
Electronic Imaging Unit | 
University of Bradford  | Tough on St.Helens
TEL: +44 1274 385463    | Tough on the causes of St.Helens.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats]

Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote:
: In article <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu>,
: Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
: >Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote:
: >
: >: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology.
: >
: >So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology?  I

: The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is
: the application of physics to produce technology. 

: If physics is not involved, you aren't producing technology, nor are you
: doing engineering.

: Examples: writing software is not engineering, and the result is not
: technology, because principles of physics are not required to understand the
: internal semantics of software systems. Designing a pure logic circuit isn't
: engineering either, except when you have to solve implementation problems
: related to heat dissipation, capacitive or inductive coupling and other
: artifacts related to the _technology_.

My take is this:

Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to 
discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things". 
"Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain  
behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an 
attempt to explain the way things, any things, work. 

Engineering is the design and manufacture of "things" to suit a 
pre-defined need. "Things" can be physical objects designed to harness 
natural phenomena or they can be software operating in a man made 
environment such as a computer. If the evolution of a "thing" coming into 
existence involved a specification, a design process and an 
implementation then by my definition one could say it has been 
'engineered'. 

Mathematics exists in the mind alone. It is the process of discovering 
and describing precisely by symbolic means various kinds of facts and 
relationships. It is the process of implementing a rich "language" which 
enables scientists to express their ideas and engineers to model the 
behviour of their phenomena-harnessing implementations of those ideas.

In short:

The mathematician builds the hammer, the scientist writes the instruction 
manual and the engineer just likes to sit there maniacally hitting things 
with it. :^)

I would say, however, a computer scientist / engineer doesn't fit quite so 
easily into any of the above pidgeon holes. Civil engineers, electrical / 
electronic engineers, etc all have to work with the physical environment 
as it exists. A guy who builds a bridge cannot decide that he wants 
gravity to work sideways and save money on those nuts for the horizontal 
bolts. If a computer scientist / engineer decides that, to suit his or 
her specification best, a different architecture or operating system 
philosophy is required then that option is always open. 

I've forgotten who I'm agreeing with now. :^)

--
Chris Russell           | Bradford Bulls - Wembley 1997
Electronic Imaging Unit | 
University of Bradford  | Tough on St.Helens
TEL: +44 1274 385463    | Tough on the causes of St.Helens.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

<<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to
discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things".
"Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain
behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an
attempt to explain the way things, any things, work.
>>

I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a 
capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent
with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the
outcome of observations not yet made. 

"*the* way things work"

no

you are looking for *a* theory, not *the* theory!

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <5mmq08$qqd@corn.cso.niu.edu> system  writes:

>clines@delete_this.airmail.net (Kevin Cline) writes:
>
>>Evidently not true.  Calculus was invented in the 17th century by Newton.
>>Another poster has stated that the OED dates "technology" to 1614, so it
>>appears that the word "technology" predates calculus.
>
>the 17th century is the 1600s.
>
>However Newton was born in 1642.

Then as long a Newton invented calculus before his 59th birthday, it was
indeed invented in the 17th century.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Kevin Cline]

system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:

>clines@delete_this.airmail.net (Kevin Cline) writes:
>
>>Evidently not true.  Calculus was invented in the 17th century by Newton.
>>Another poster has stated that the OED dates "technology" to 1614, so it
>>appears that the word "technology" predates calculus.
>
>the 17th century is the 1600s.
>
>However Newton was born in 1642.

Right.  Last time I checked, 1614 preceded 1642.  And I believe Newton
did invent Calculus before he reached 58 years of age. So the word
"technology" predates  the invention of calculus.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Nick Roberts]

Kaz Kylheku <kaz@vision.crest.nt.com> wrote in article
<5meuvm$hpf@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>...
[...]
> Engineering is the application of *physics* (and derivative hard sciences
close
> to physics) to create technology. This is seems to be perfectly clear to
> everyone except a minority of computer weenies who suffer from engineer
envy. I
> know real engineers who _laugh_ at the term software engineering.
> 
> This definition steps on some people's toes, because they can no longer
fancy
> themselves to be engineers. The problem is with their complex, not with
my
> lexicon. 
> 
> Perhaps their father wanted them to become an engineer and they have
> disappointed him by becoming ``mere'' computer programmers. I have known
such
> cases.


With respect, Kaz, you couldn't be more wrong if you were to say the moon
were made of cheese.

Would you say that a modern motor car represented a feat of engineering? I
think most people would. There are a great many problems of physics and
chemistry to overcome, as well as problems of human physiology, human
psychology, and all manner of 'hard' sciences.

And yet, a typical piece of software has _thousands of times_ as many
working parts as any car (since every single instruction in a piece of
software is a working part (yes it really is)). In fact, cars nowadays have
a considerable amount of software in them, to run the engines, the air
conditioning, the ABS braking (as well as the navigation system, the
telephone, the radio/CD player, etc, etc, etc). Does a computer inside a
car engine not count as engineering? What do you think the engine's design
engineers (that is their official job title) would say?

The design and construction of software is as much an engineering task as
building a bridge, or an office block, or a motor car. It involves the
understanding and negotiation of the laws of nature (in the form of logic
and mathematics) as much as building physical things requires similar
skills with regard to the physical laws of nature. It involves exactly the
same processes of specification, design, refinement, and testing. It
usually involves much of the same knowledge of human characteristics
(mostly psychological) as most physical engineering does.

In short, the skills of software engineering are remarkably similar to
those of other branches of engineering. These professions have come from
differing traditions (some much older than others), but thoughtful people
are realising these days that building software is really almost the same
business as building anything else. The only difference is that the
software inhabits a non-physical nether-world, and tends to be vastly more
complex; there are precious few other real differences.

Nick.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Philip Brashear]

Newton laid down the fundamentals of what he called the "method of
fluxions" when he was forced to return to the farm during the time
of the Great Plague (1666-1667).  This was a very productive time
for him, in spite of the terrible happenings in the cities.

Phil Brashear

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Nick Roberts]

Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in article
<dewar.865041126@merv>...
> <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt
to
> discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things".
> "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain
> behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an
> attempt to explain the way things, any things, work.
> >>
> 
> I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a 
> capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent
> with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the
> outcome of observations not yet made. 
> 
> "*the* way things work"
> 
> no
> 
> you are looking for *a* theory, not *the* theory!


This brings the theory of multiple realities into play. A concept I think
most people find a bit hard to grasp (or swallow or whatever [maybe grasp
in one universe and swallow in another?]). 

Nick ;-)

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <dewar.865041126@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to
> discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things".
> "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain
> behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an
> attempt to explain the way things, any things, work.
> >>
> 
> I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a 
> capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent
> with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the
> outcome of observations not yet made. 

It is worth pointing out though, that this sort of view _only_ came
about around 60-70 years ago and can be pinned squarely on the back of
Bohr.  The notion of "complimentarity" was the birth of this sort of
view in physics (and it seems to have "infected" other branches as
time went along) in an attempt to _somehow_ come to grips with the
epistemological problems of the "quantum fix".

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> cgrussel@bradford.ac.uk (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes:

> Mathematics exists in the mind alone.

You would get some pretty heated disagreement over this from many
mathematicians and philosophers (you would also get a number lining up
on your side...)  Of course, this just punts the problem to the issue
of "what is mind" - which is even more inflammatory.


> It is the process of discovering and describing precisely by
> symbolic means various kinds of facts and relationships.

<playing one of those who would disagree with the above bit>: OK, so
what do these "facts" and "relationships" concern?  What are they
about?  Of what are they facts and relationships??  Sounds like
something "out there"...


> I've forgotten who I'm agreeing with now. :^)

:-)!!

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Mathew Hendry]

In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:

: <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to
: discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things".
: "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain
: behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an
: attempt to explain the way things, any things, work.
: >>
: 
: I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a 
: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent
: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the
: outcome of observations not yet made. 

Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets,
basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon
the exploits of invisible crocodiles.

The two theories give exactly the same predictions.

Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with
observations, how do you choose between these two theories?

-- Mat.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Mathew Hendry]

In comp.lang.c++ John Winters <john@polo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>,
: Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
: >In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:
: >
: >: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent
: >: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the
: >: outcome of observations not yet made. 
: >
: >Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets,
: >basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon
: >the exploits of invisible crocodiles.
: >
: >The two theories give exactly the same predictions.
: >
: >Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with
: >observations,

: Errr, what else do you imagine they could be judged on?

On their explanatory power.

: >how do you choose between these two theories?

: You devise tests which should produce different results depending on
: which of the two theories is true.  Then you apply the tests, observe
: the results and discard whichever theories are disproven.

Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can
distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my
crocodile theory. Why not?

-- Mat.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <01bc6d40$96100ca0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes:

> And yet, a typical piece of software has _thousands of times_ as many
> working parts as any car (since every single instruction in a piece of
> software is a working part (yes it really is)). In fact, cars nowadays have

I've always been surprised when people make this utterly bogus
argument.  If you are going to include "all the instructions or all
the statements, or whatnot", then in any reasonable comparison you
need to include all the _molecules_ of the car.  Of which there are,
ahem, quite a few more than all the software "instructions" ever
written (and probably ever likely to be written in total).  This seems
completely reasonable: all the materials engineering and chemistry is
an effort to get the actual physical stuff to work/behave/function as
required.


> In short, the skills of software engineering are remarkably similar to
> those of other branches of engineering. These professions have come from

Agreed.  But, unfortunately, there has been no exploration of the
analog of such engineering for software artifacts.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[John Winters]

In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>,
Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:
>
>: <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to
>: discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things".
>: "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain
>: behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an
>: attempt to explain the way things, any things, work.
>: >>
>: 
>: I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a 
>: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent
>: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the
>: outcome of observations not yet made. 
>
>Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets,
>basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon
>the exploits of invisible crocodiles.
>
>The two theories give exactly the same predictions.
>
>Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with
>observations,

Errr, what else do you imagine they could be judged on?

>how do you choose between these two theories?

You devise tests which should produce different results depending on
which of the two theories is true.  Then you apply the tests, observe
the results and discard whichever theories are disproven.

There really is *no* other way you can do it.  This is the whole
essence of scientific enquiry.

John
-- 
John Winters.  Wallingford, Oxon, England.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Ed Prochak - Woodland Consultants]

This has certainly gone off the languages thread, but I'll toss
out one comment here.

John Winters (john@polo.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>,
: Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
: >In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:
: >
: >: <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to
: >: discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things".
: >: "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain
: >: behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an
: >: attempt to explain the way things, any things, work.
: >: >>
: >: 
: >: I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a 
: >: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent
: >: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the
: >: outcome of observations not yet made. 
: >
: >Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets,
: >basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon
: >the exploits of invisible crocodiles.
: >
: >The two theories give exactly the same predictions.
: >
: >Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with
: >observations,

: Errr, what else do you imagine they could be judged on?

: >how do you choose between these two theories?

: You devise tests which should produce different results depending on
: which of the two theories is true.  Then you apply the tests, observe
: the results and discard whichever theories are disproven.

: There really is *no* other way you can do it.  This is the whole
: essence of scientific enquiry.

: John
: -- 
: John Winters.  Wallingford, Oxon, England.


There is one tool used in this situation: Occam's razor.
Of two theories which differ in assumptions,
but result in the same predictions ,
and match the same observations,
keep the one with the fewer and simpler assumptions.

granted real theories are not easily recognizable as
clearly simpler than another (consider the fundamental physics
theories like "strings" and its competitors)

But to at least keep this thread to software, I'd say this is
clearly an Engineering type field. Our jobs are to get something
working. There obviously is some Computer Science to back us
up, even though it is not always codified in clearcut equations.
Analysis of algorithms are one tool to help. Reusable components
(libraries, objects, whatever) are another part of an Engineering
approach. Appropriate programming languages should be another.

Enough for now. I've got work to do.

  ed

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Mathew Hendry wrote:
> 
> In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:
> 
> : <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to
> : discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things".
> : "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain
> : behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an
> : attempt to explain the way things, any things, work.
> : >>
> :
> : I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a
> : capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent
> : with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the
> : outcome of observations not yet made.
> 
> Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets,
> basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon
> the exploits of invisible crocodiles.
> 
> The two theories give exactly the same predictions.
> 
> Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with
> observations, how do you choose between these two theories?
> 
> -- Mat.

Coin toss?  ;-}

-- 
Remove question marks (spam repellent) from address to reply.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Craig Franck]

scampi@dial.pipex.com (Mathew Hendry) wrote:
>In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:
>
>: <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to
>: discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things".
>: "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain
>: behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an
>: attempt to explain the way things, any things, work.
>: >>
>: 
>: I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a 
>: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent
>: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the
>: outcome of observations not yet made. 
>
>Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets,
>basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon
>the exploits of invisible crocodiles.
>
>The two theories give exactly the same predictions.
>
>Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with
>observations, how do you choose between these two theories?

Look to your weltanschauung and let it guide you.

-- 
Craig
clfranck@worldnet.att.net
Manchester, NH
I don't pretend to understand the universe, it is
a great deal bigger than I am. -- Thomas Carlyle

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Spaceman Spiff]

> Mathew Hendry wrote:
> > Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets,
> > basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon
> > the exploits of invisible crocodiles.
> >
> > The two theories give exactly the same predictions.
> >
> > Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with
> > observations, how do you choose between these two theories?

You missed this one by a mile (kilometer).
The competition between Relativity and quantum physics, suffered from 
those same arguments.
You choose by the one that fits observation, can predict formerly
unknown
behavior, and has the least assumptions (things that are accepted,
unproven,
like invisible crocks and magnetic fields).

Anyone with a slight background in science should know that.

-Scotty

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Martin C. Carlisle]

In article <19970602.433020.144E5@ai078.du.pipex.com>,
Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>In comp.lang.c++ John Winters <john@polo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: >: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent
>: >: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the
>: >: outcome of observations not yet made. 
>: >
>: >Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets,
>: >basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon
>: >the exploits of invisible crocodiles.
>: >The two theories give exactly the same predictions.
>: >
>
>Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can
>distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my
>crocodile theory. Why not?

Well, the reason is called Occam's razor.  Simply stated, given two 
theories that make the same predictions, favor the simpler.  Unfortunately
deciding which is simpler is based on personal bias.  So, although you
might think invisible crocodiles aren't much of a leap of faith =), most
others probably disagree.

--Martin

-- 
Martin C. Carlisle, Computer Science, US Air Force Academy
mcc@cs.usafa.af.mil, http://www.usafa.af.mil/dfcs/bios/carlisle.html
DISCLAIMER:  This content in no way reflects the opinions, standard or 
policy of the US Air Force Academy or the United States Government.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[S. Norby]

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> 
> In article <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu>,
> Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
> >Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote:
> >
> >: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology.
> >
> >So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology?  I
> 
> The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is
> the application of physics to produce technology.
> 
> If physics is not involved, you aren't producing technology, nor are you
> doing engineering.
> 
> Examples: writing software is not engineering, and the result is not
> technology, because principles of physics are not required to understand the
> internal semantics of software systems. Designing a pure logic circuit isn't
> engineering either, except when you have to solve implementation problems
> related to heat dissipation, capacitive or inductive coupling and other
> artifacts related to the _technology_.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from WWWebster Dictionary:

Main Entry:(1) engineer
Function: noun
Etymology: alter. of earlier enginer, from Middle English, alteration 
  of enginour, from Middle French engigneur, from Old French engignier 
  to contrive, from engin
Date: 14th century
1 : a member of a military group devoted to engineering work
2 obsolete : a crafty schemer : PLOTTER
3 a : a designer or builder of engines b : a person who is trained in 
  or follows as a profession a branch of engineering c : a person who 
  carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance
4 : a person who runs or supervises an engine or an apparatus 

Main Entry:(2) engineer
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1843
1 : to lay out, construct, or manage as an engineer
2 a : to contrive or plan out usually with more or less subtle skill 
  and craft b : to guide the course of
3 : to modify or produce by genetic engineering <grain crops engineered
  to require fewer nutrients and produce higher yields>

Main Entry: engineering
Function: noun
Date: 1720
1 : the activities or function of an engineer
2 a : the application of science and mathematics by which the 
  properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made
  useful to people b : the design and manufacture of complex
  products <software engineering>
3 : calculated manipulation or direction (as of behavior) <social
  engineering> -- compare GENETIC ENGINEERING 

Main Entry: technology
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: Greek technologia systematic treatment of an art, from 
  technE art, skill + -o- + -logia -logy
Date: 1859
1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular
  area : ENGINEERING 2 <medical technology> b : a capability given by
  the practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving
  technology>
2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical
  processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information
  storage>
3 : the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor
  <educational technology>
- technologist /-jist/ noun 

~~~~~~~~~~~~



-- 
Suzette N.

\\\    \\\    \\\    \\\    \\\    \\\    \\\    \\\    \\\ 
( :)   ( :)   ( :)   ( :)   ( :)   ( :)   ( :)   ( :)   ( :)
///    ///    ///    ///    ///    ///    ///    ///    /// 
(Speaking only for myself)

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[John Winters]

In article <19970602.433020.144E5@ai078.du.pipex.com>,
Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>In comp.lang.c++ John Winters <john@polo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>,
>: Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>: >In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:
>: >
>: >: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent
>: >: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the
>: >: outcome of observations not yet made. 
>: >
>: >Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets,
>: >basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon
>: >the exploits of invisible crocodiles.
>: >
>: >The two theories give exactly the same predictions.
>: >
>: >Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with
>: >observations,
>
>: Errr, what else do you imagine they could be judged on?
>
>On their explanatory power.

Define.

>: >how do you choose between these two theories?
>
>: You devise tests which should produce different results depending on
>: which of the two theories is true.  Then you apply the tests, observe
>: the results and discard whichever theories are disproven.
>
>Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can
>distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my
>crocodile theory. Why not?

Given the facts exactly as you describe them, no right-minded scientist
would have any excuse for preferring one theory over the other.  Show
me a scientist who - if there genuinely is *no* observable reason
for rejecting a theory - nonetheless rejects it, and I'll show you
an incompetent scientist.  However the facts never are quite as you
describe them.  What makes an outlandish theory outlandish is that it
doesn't fit the observable facts.  The skill of the scientist is in
devising tests which allow them to separate the good theories from the
bad ones.

John

-- 
John Winters.  Wallingford, Oxon, England.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Fritz W Feuerbacher]

Jon S Anthony (jsa@alexandria) wrote:
: In article <5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> cgrussel@bradford.ac.uk (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes:

: > Mathematics exists in the mind alone.

This is one of the unanswered questions in mathematics.  Does all the math
already exist only for man to discover it, or man invent the math so it
can exist?

I doubt you'll be answering this very soon.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Volker Hetzer]

Mathew Hendry wrote:
> 
> In comp.lang.c++ John Winters <john@polo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> : In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>,
> : Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> : >Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets,
> : >basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon
> : >the exploits of invisible crocodiles.
> : >
> : >The two theories give exactly the same predictions.
> : >
> : >Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with
> : >observations,
> : Errr, what else do you imagine they could be judged on?
> On their explanatory power.
My understanding of "explanatory power" is how much things
get explained how simple. This basically boils down to what he said plus
occams razor.

> 
> : >how do you choose between these two theories?
> 
> : You devise tests which should produce different results depending on
> : which of the two theories is true.  Then you apply the tests, observe
> : the results and discard whichever theories are disproven.
> 
> Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can
> distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my
> crocodile theory. Why not?

Actually, you haven't made any predictions. You only stated that your
theory
WOULD make the same predictions. And it's not enough to make
predictions,   
you also have to explain why, according to your theory, the prediction
should be
true.                                                             
So, just think about some crocodilic reasons for orbits, about
what         
keeps your crocodiles behind the planets (gravity/centrifugal forces
are    
conventional theory), what they feed on, how they push the planets
while    
feeding,...                                                                  
And then we will try to devise tests of your theory. Or check it against
more fundamental theories.

Volker

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Joe Charlier]

Define Mathematics
Define Mind
Define exists in
Define alone

then let's talk
-- 
	Joe Charlier
	=======================
	Aepryus Software
	http://www.Aepryus.com/

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Mathew Hendry]

In comp.lang.c Volker Hetzer <hetzer.abg@sni.de> wrote:
: Mathew Hendry wrote:
: > In comp.lang.c++ John Winters <john@polo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: > : In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>,
: > : Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
: > : >how do you choose between these two theories?
: > 
: > : You devise tests which should produce different results depending on
: > : which of the two theories is true.  Then you apply the tests, observe
: > : the results and discard whichever theories are disproven.
: > 
: > Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can
: > distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my
: > crocodile theory. Why not?

: Actually, you haven't made any predictions. You only stated that your
: theory
: WOULD make the same predictions.

It does make predictions, namely that the observable phenomenon behaves in
exactly the same way as that predicted by the Newtonian theory. The crocodiles
know that theory, and behave accordingly.

If science were only about prediction (as has been claimed in this thread and
numerous times elsewhere), the crocodile theory would be as valid as the
Newtonian one.

But science is not, so the crocodile theory is not.

: And it's not enough to make
: predictions,   
: you also have to explain why, according to your theory, the prediction
: should be
: true.                                                             

Exactly.

-- Mat.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

Nick Roberts said

<<This brings the theory of multiple realities into play. A concept I think
most people find a bit hard to grasp (or swallow or whatever [maybe grasp
in one universe and swallow in another?]). 
>>

Actually the concept of even *one* reality is quite irrelevant to science in 
the view of many philosophers. Indeed Al Matson argues that it is a detriment
for a scientist to believe in the notion of reality, because it will tend to
cloud pure abstract thinking about what theories match observations.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

Mat said

<<Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can
distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my
crocodile theory. Why not?
>>

We have not seen your crocodile theory, so guesses as to whether or not it
might be accepted are silly. Note that in using the word crocodile, you are
appealing to an informal notion of reality which might or might not be
helpful. Perhaps it would be better to call it your crocjunk theory to
avoid unnecessary associations (though sometimes these associations are
useful).

We choose between theories on the basis of predictive power, and if we have
two competing theories then we choose the simpler one in Occam's sense.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Lawrence Kirby]

In article <19970606.49CA70.12B91@ae124.du.pipex.com>
           scampi@dial.pipex.com "Mathew Hendry" writes:

>It does make predictions, namely that the observable phenomenon behaves in
>exactly the same way as that predicted by the Newtonian theory. The crocodiles
>know that theory, and behave accordingly.

The problem with the crocodile theory is that it is based on hidden
knowledge, not scientific axioms. It may be valid but doesn't deal with
the fundamentals. And of course the crocodiles might change their minds or
die out, so the crocodile theory is not as strongly founded.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[John G. Volan]

I can't believe you folks are still beating this ... "subject" ... to
death. It's quite embarrassing.

You know, you can get help for this. There's a 12-step group for people
who just can't drop a thread. It's called On-and-On-and-On Anon.

:-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature 
  (Name       => "John G. Volan",
   Employer   => "Texas Instruments Advanced C3I Systems, San Jose, CA",
   Work_Email => "johnv@ti.com",
   Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com",
   Slogan     => "Ada95: World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL",
   Disclaimer => "My employer never defined these opinions, so using" & 
                 "them would be totally erroneous ... or is that"     &
                 "just nondeterministic behavior now? :-) ");
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Jason Shankel]

Craig Franck wrote:
> But, the crocodile theory explains more because it has a method of
> interaction; the Newtonian theory *never* explaines *why* gravity
> works. 

That's why it's weak as a scientific theory.  Superstring theory has
this same problem.  Yes, it explains much.  Yes, it seems to work.  But
it requires a 10 dimensional universe with 7 of those dimensions wrapped
too tightly to be perceived.

The crocidile theory stipulates the existence of crocodiles.  If these
crocodiles cannot be detected by any means and simpler explanations for
alleged crocodile activity cannot be disproven, then the theory isn't
very useful.

For "crocodile" read "string".

Jason Shankel

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

Mat said

<< 
If science were only about prediction (as has been claimed in this thread and
numerous times elsewhere), the crocodile theory would be as valid as the
Newtonian one.
 
But science is not, so the crocodile theory is not.
 >>


Science is only about formulating theories and making predictions (at least
that is the late 20th century post-Heisenberg viewpoint).

But let's look at the two theories here

Newtonian explanation

Crocodiles using the Newtonian theory pushing things around (as best I
understand the MH alternative theory).

Occam's Razor clearly selects the simpler form sans crocodiles, so your
theory, while not predictively inferior, gets rejected solely on this
basis (and on no other!)

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Mathew Hendry]

In comp.lang.c Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
: Mat said

: <<Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can
: distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my
: crocodile theory. Why not?
: >>

: We have not seen your crocodile theory, so guesses as to whether or not it
: might be accepted are silly.

Okay, here it is again. There are some crocodiles. They know everything about
current theories of dynamics. They move objects around accordingly.

:                              Note that in using the word crocodile, you are
: appealing to an informal notion of reality which might or might not be
: helpful.

My terminology is irrelevant. I have provided the predictions, which you seem
to think are all that can be _required_ from a theory.

:            Perhaps it would be better to call it your crocjunk theory to
: avoid unnecessary associations (though sometimes these associations are
: useful).

Again, irrelevant. But please, give the theory the name which you think will
help your argument the most.

: We choose between theories on the basis of predictive power, and if we have
: two competing theories then we choose the simpler one in Occam's sense.

Then you agree with me. Prediction alone is not enough.

-- Mat.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Joe Charlier]

What does it matter which one I choose.  They both give me the correct
answer, so who cares.

-- 
	Joe Charlier
	=======================
	Aepryus Software
	http://www.Aepryus.com/

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Craig Franck]

dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:
>Mat said
>
><< 
>If science were only about prediction (as has been claimed in this thread and
>numerous times elsewhere), the crocodile theory would be as valid as the
>Newtonian one.
> 
>But science is not, so the crocodile theory is not.
> >>
>
>
>Science is only about formulating theories and making predictions (at least
>that is the late 20th century post-Heisenberg viewpoint).
>
>But let's look at the two theories here
>
>Newtonian explanation

He can predict, but he has no *explanation*. The whole thing reeks of
some sort of cabalistic mumbo jumbo. (The last passage of his I read
had him sort of "divining the mind of God through mathematics", blah,
blah, blah...

>Crocodiles using the Newtonian theory pushing things around (as best I
>understand the MH alternative theory).

Nope. All matter interacts by exchanging virtual crocodiles. When a
crocodile "hops" from one particle to the next, they can be said to
be interacting. (An alternative theory has them pushing things around
with their snouts: the math comes out the same either way.)

>Occam's Razor clearly selects the simpler form sans crocodiles, so your
>theory, while not predictively inferior, gets rejected solely on this
>basis (and on no other!)

But, the crocodile theory explains more because it has a method of 
interaction; the Newtonian theory *never* explaines *why* gravity
works. Gravity works by exchanging virual crocodiles. (You can also
think of it in terms of snout waves as well. In fact, we are all
immersed in a sea of snout-waves.)

-- 
Craig
clfranck@worldnet.att.net
Manchester, NH
I don't pretend to understand the universe, it is
a great deal bigger than I am. -- Thomas Carlyle

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Jonathan Guthrie]

In comp.lang.ada Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:

> << 
> If science were only about prediction (as has been claimed in this thread and
> numerous times elsewhere), the crocodile theory would be as valid as the
> Newtonian one.
  
> But science is not, so the crocodile theory is not.
>  >>

> Science is only about formulating theories and making predictions (at least
> that is the late 20th century post-Heisenberg viewpoint).

> But let's look at the two theories here

> Newtonian explanation

> Crocodiles using the Newtonian theory pushing things around (as best I
> understand the MH alternative theory).

> Occam's Razor clearly selects the simpler form sans crocodiles, so your
> theory, while not predictively inferior, gets rejected solely on this
> basis (and on no other!)

I disagree that you need Ockham's razor to lay the so-called "Crocodile
Theory" to rest.  As near as I can tell, the "Crocodile Theory" can
be stated this way:  "There are these invisible crocodiles, and 
they move the planets around in some arbitrary way."  (The competing
theory is:  "The planets move in a gravitational field according to
the nature of that field.")

However, crocodiles moving planets around in some unstated arbitrary way
is useless to make predictions from.  Therefore, the theory makes no
predictions at all about planetary "behavior" (one could argue that it
cannot---after all, what happens if the crocodiles change their mind
about how to move the planets?)

And before that fool writes me another email, no I'm not going to accept
"they know about those other laws and always follow them" as a description
of which arbitrary way they move the planets.  I can derive the Newtonian
laws of planetary motion from the nature of the gravitational field.
What can you derive from the crocodiles?  Other than soup, stew, etouffee, 
and so forth, I mean.

-- 
Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com)
Information Broker Systems   +281-895-8101   http://www.brokersys.com/
12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX  77014, USA

We sell Internet access and commercial Web space.  We also are general
network consultants in the greater Houston area.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

Jason said

<<The crocidile theory stipulates the existence of crocodiles.  If these
crocodiles cannot be detected by any means and simpler explanations for
alleged crocodile activity cannot be disproven, then the theory isn't
very useful.>>

No, it's stronger than that, if something cannot be detected by any means,
then from a scientific point of view, it simply cannot be part of any theory.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

John Volan says

<<I can't believe you folks are still beating this ... "subject" ... to
death. It's quite embarrassing.
 
You know, you can get help for this. There's a 12-step group for people
who just can't drop a thread. It's called On-and-On-and-On Anon.
 >>


And I can't believe John is still reading the thread if he feels this way.
What's the matter John, don't you know how to kill a thread?

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

Martin said

<<Well, the reason is called Occam's razor.  Simply stated, given two 
theories that make the same predictions, favor the simpler.  Unfortunately
deciding which is simpler is based on personal bias.  So, although you
might think invisible crocodiles aren't much of a leap of faith =), most
others probably disagree.
 
--Martin
 >>


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.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)]

> The problem with the crocodile theory is that it is based on hidden
> knowledge, not scientific axioms. It may be valid but doesn't deal with
> the fundamentals. And of course the crocodiles might change their minds or
> die out, so the crocodile theory is not as strongly founded.

No, the problem with the crocodile theory is that its axioms 
(the existence of invisible crocodiles) are offensive to 
"right-thinking scientists."

An axiom is an unproven starting point from which the rest of
a formal system is derived.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA
Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS                  Tool-smith Wanna-be

Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked!  All disk space
on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or 
the United States government.  Using email to store YOUR advertising 
on them is trespassing!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[John G. Volan]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> And I can't believe John is still reading the thread if he feels this way.
> What's the matter John, don't you know how to kill a thread?

Well, I was trying for humor, but if you want a serious response:

I haven't been reading this thread, but I have been "watching" it.  I do
know how to kill a thread but generally I don't bother with a killfile;
if I get fed up with the latest messages in a thread, I'll tell Netscape
to mark the thread as read, collapse the tree, and go on.

But, irrespective of one's kill preferences, a useless or off-topic
thread, especially one that is cross-posted to multiple newsgroups like
this, wastes Internet bandwidth and host resources and just contributes
to the world wide wait. Also, remember that in the case of
comp.lang.ada, everything posted there is echoed on the info-ada mailing
list. If one has chosen to receive digests from info-ada, there's no way
to "kill" threads.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature 
  (Name       => "John G. Volan",
   Employer   => "Texas Instruments Advanced C3I Systems, San Jose, CA",
   Work_Email => "johnv@ti.com",
   Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com",
   Slogan     => "Ada95: World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL",
   Disclaimer => "My employer never defined these opinions, so using " & 
                 "them would be totally erroneous...or is that just "  &
                 "nondeterministic behavior now? :-) ");
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Ralph Silverman]

Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote:
: In article <dewar.864731403@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
: >tim says
: >
: ><<It may not be semantically correct to refer to 'software engineering
: >technology'
: >but the programming metaphor forces the issue...>>
: >
: >
: >Of course it is semantically correct. You can refer to the technology
: >of graphology, or the technology of basket weaving, or anything else.

: Yes, you can. But by stretching the words too thinly, so to speak, they
: lose their ability to discern.

: >Technology is a *very* general word in normal English usage. Kaz is
: >pushing his own remade lexicon, but do not get confused by it. The trouble

: I don't think that the lexicon is remade. And in any case, I'm not going to
: resort to the lowly tactic of changing the definitions on the fly.

: >with this kind of discussion of the meaning of words is that a lot of
: >readers of CLA are not native English speakers. It is not helpful to anyone,
: >but especially not helpful to that group, to use English words in a 
: >non-standard manner!

: Such as using technology or engineering to refer to software.

: Engineering is the application of *physics* (and derivative hard sciences close
: to physics) to create technology. This is seems to be perfectly clear to
: everyone except a minority of computer weenies who suffer from engineer envy. I
: know real engineers who _laugh_ at the term software engineering.

: This definition steps on some people's toes, because they can no longer fancy
: themselves to be engineers. The problem is with their complex, not with my
: lexicon. 

: Perhaps their father wanted them to become an engineer and they have
: disappointed him by becoming ``mere'' computer programmers. I have known such
: cases.


	the problem of making
		an automaton
	which can defeat
		a ( human )
		 world chess champion
	at chess
	would seem to be 
	an engineering problem ...
	if achievable  !
	( re.  recent 'deep blue' events ... )

	moreover ...
	much of 'hard science' and 'engineering'
	is now a kind of branch of
	computer science ...
	due to prevalence of
		computer aided design
	and
		simulation
	...

	moreover ...
	regarding vehicles ...
	such as
		automotive
	and
		aviation
	...
	fundamental operability
	now frequently depends on
		programming ...

	certainly at least some programming
	may,  with reason,  be viewed as
		engineering
	!

--

Ralph Silverman
z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Mathew Hendry]

In comp.lang.c Jonathan Guthrie <jguthrie@brokersys.com> wrote:
: I disagree that you need Ockham's razor to lay the so-called "Crocodile
: Theory" to rest.  As near as I can tell, the "Crocodile Theory" can
: be stated this way:  "There are these invisible crocodiles, and 
: they move the planets around in some arbitrary way."  (The competing
: theory is:  "The planets move in a gravitational field according to
: the nature of that field.")

: However, crocodiles moving planets around in some unstated arbitrary way
: is useless to make predictions from.  Therefore, the theory makes no
: predictions at all about planetary "behavior" (one could argue that it
: cannot---after all, what happens if the crocodiles change their mind
: about how to move the planets?)

: And before that fool writes me another email, no I'm not going to accept
: "they know about those other laws and always follow them" as a description
: of which arbitrary way they move the planets.

The predictions of the theory are the same, whether you accept it or not. Its
predictions follow directly from its stated assumptions, as with any other
theory, valid or not.

Obviously, you would be a fool if you did accept the theory, but that's hardly
the point. My intention was to illustrate the fact that theories are not
simply blind prediction engines.

Since you have done so well at picking holes in the _explanation_ given by the
theory - rather than its predictions, which are, by definition, sound - you
seem to have proved my point. Your resorting to personal insults is an added
bonus, of course.

-- Mat.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

<<But, irrespective of one's kill preferences, a useless or off-topic
thread, especially one that is cross-posted to multiple newsgroups like
this, wastes Internet bandwidth and host resources and just contributes
to the world wide wait. Also, remember that in the case of
comp.lang.ada, everything posted there is echoed on the info-ada mailing
list. If one has chosen to receive digests from info-ada, there's no way
to "kill" threads.
 >>


Cross-posting does not increase bandwidth
The total bandwidth taken up by comp newsgroups is absolutely negligible
in terms of the wwwait compared with the binaries in alt.sex.
If the digesting process cannot kill threads, it is defective.
The ability of people to follow off-topic threads obviously appeals
to a lot of people. As long as a thread is easily killable, I see no
measurable disadvantage.

Finally, the most useless of messages are like yours and this one here,
that waste time discussing whether some other thread should exist or not.
You can never kill a thread by telling people to stop contributing. Instead
you just dd irrelevant junk to the thread :-)

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Robert Dewar]

Wes says

<<No, the problem with the crocodile theory is that its axioms 
(the existence of invisible crocodiles) are offensive to 
"right-thinking scientists."
 >>


As a practical description of how some scientists think, this is probably
accurate, but as a description of how they SHOULD think it is flawed. 
The history of science is full of incidents of scientists rejecting
superior (in a predictive sense) theories because they find them
offensive (e.g. Einstein's objections to Heisenberg's theories), but
such non-scientific reactions often stand in the way of progress. if
the crocodile theory had superior predictive capabilities, then it
should immediately be accepted by all scientists. In fact, the theory
does NOT have superior predictive capabilities, and is unnecessarily
complex, in that it proposes elements that cannot be deduced as useful
from observations, and which are therefore junk.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)]

> <<No, the problem with the crocodile theory is that its axioms
> (the existence of invisible crocodiles) are offensive to
> "right-thinking scientists."
>  >>
> 
> As a practical description of how some scientists think, this is probably
> accurate, but as a description of how they SHOULD think it is flawed.

Yes.  The quote-marks were a reminder that "right-thinking" was not 
_my_ phrase.  :-)

> [snip] .... if
> the crocodile theory had superior predictive capabilities, then it
> should immediately be accepted by all scientists. ....

But it won't be.  Scientists, being human, have just as much tendency
(as a group) to pig-headedness as the rest of us (as you suggested in
what I snipped).  A modern example:  Some doctors are claiming that
there is empirical evidence that prayer improves a patient's chances
of recovery.  Some say this evidence does not exist.  But a large
number are blasting their colleagues for even suggesting such an 
unscientific thing.

Having fanned the flames of all the bigots on both sides of
the religion issue, I now bow out of this thread.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA
Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS                  Tool-smith Wanna-be

Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked!  All disk space
on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or 
the United States government.  Using email to store YOUR advertising 
on them is trespassing!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Jonathan Guthrie]

Okay, the "personal attacks" (calling you a "fool" in public hardly
qualifies as a personal attack on Usenet, referencing the brouhaha
on various newsgroups over an article by Ousterhout as an example of
what I'm thinking of) are uncalled for, so here's what I really think.  

In comp.lang.ada Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> : However, crocodiles moving planets around in some unstated arbitrary way
> : is useless to make predictions from.  Therefore, the theory makes no
> : predictions at all about planetary "behavior" (one could argue that it
> : cannot---after all, what happens if the crocodiles change their mind
> : about how to move the planets?)

> The predictions of the theory are the same, whether you accept it or not. Its
> predictions follow directly from its stated assumptions, as with any other
> theory, valid or not.

You don't seem to understand.  I will attempt to explain better.

The positions of the planets, which is all you seem to be talking about,
can be determined by Kepler's laws.  Those laws can be derived from
Newtonian dynamics while it is a postulate with this "crocodile
theory."  While it is possible to make other predictions than the future
positions of the planets from Newtonian dynamics, it is not possible to
predict ANYTHING using the theory that crocodiles move the planets by
whim and their knowledge of Kepler's laws EXCEPT the future positions
of the planets,

This is true "whether you accept it or not."

Therefore, your "crocodile theory" is inferior in predictive power to
Newton's theory of universal gravitation, which is what you seem to
be comparing it to.

Now, if you were to expand your "crocodile theory" to be something like
a "theory of universal crocodiles", I would point out that 

A) Newton doesn't attempt to explain where gravity comes from or how
it works so I'm as willing to accept your theory of gravitation as any
other that I've seen
and 
B) Changing the name isn't an explanation.

> Obviously, you would be a fool if you did accept the theory, but that's hardly
> the point. My intention was to illustrate the fact that theories are not
> simply blind prediction engines.

I know what you're point is.  That's why I started with a statement that
Ockham's razor isn't needed.  Ockham's razor is needed to select which
theory is preferred when you have theories of equal predictive power.  To
invoke it is to concede your point.  However, you have not demonstrated
to my satisfaction that your theory is equal in predictive power to the
laws of Newtonian mechanics (simply stating that it is won't fly---I'd
just as soon believe that someone always tells you the truth because they
say they do) and I am attempting to explain WHY that I'm not satisfied
with your "proof."

In a nutshell, it's because the "crocodile theory" only explains the
motions of the planets, while Newtonian mechanics governs EVERYTHING.

Well, okay, there is one other reason I don't like your example.  
It's really bogus to wave your hands by saying "you get the same
answers, okay?"  How do you know?  Are you psychically linked to
these crocodiles, or what?  What RAW DATA are you using to create
your theory with?  Where does it come from?  (This IS what you're
trying to demonstrate, which is why it's the "other reason.")

With all the competing theories out there, and all the very real
examples you could make of competing theories making identical
predictions with one being favored for emotional reasons, you came
up with a hypothetical one.  It just so happens that I agree with
you:  The value of theories is based upon more than their predictive
power.  Ockham's razor, for better or for worse, makes that sort of
selection a formal part of science.  However, I could come up with
a better example with my eyes closed.

In fact, you seem to be so attached to the hypothesis that I have an
emotional attachment to Newtonian mechanics that I might use your
posts to ME as an example of what you're trying to demonstrate.  

Further deponant sayeth not.

-- 
Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com)
Information Broker Systems   +281-895-8101   http://www.brokersys.com/
12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX  77014, USA

We sell Internet access and commercial Web space.  We also are general
network consultants in the greater Houston area.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Mathew Hendry]

Jonathan Guthrie <jguthrie@brokersys.com> wrote:
: With all the competing theories out there, and all the very real
: examples you could make of competing theories making identical
: predictions with one being favored for emotional reasons, you came
: up with a hypothetical one.  It just so happens that I agree with
: you:  The value of theories is based upon more than their predictive
: power.  Ockham's razor, for better or for worse, makes that sort of
: selection a formal part of science.  However, I could come up with
: a better example with my eyes closed.

Maybe, but the "crocodile theory" is vaguely related to a real debate.
Replace crocodiles with a god, the proponents of the crocodile theory
(i.e. me ;) with the Roman Catholic Church, and most other contributors to
this thread with Galileans, and you might begin to see a shaky connection.

The argument from "my" side would be that a god moved the various celestial
bodies relative to a stationary Earth _as if_ they followed Gallilean laws.
But that hypothesis was eventually rejected as a scientific explanation,
because its additional postulates are redundant and untestable, and the
Galilean version was later explained more fully by other theories.

A more recent example might be arguments surrounding the theories of "parallel
universes". Which is the better explanation - that objects at quantum scales
behave _as if_ they were influenced by invisible objects, through the device
of probabilistic wave functions; or that those ghost objects _really do_ exist
elsewhere, and _really do_ interact with the objects in "our" universe?

-- Mat.

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Nick Roberts]

Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in article
<dewar.865870047@merv>...
> 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 :-)

Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers

[Nick Roberts]

Good boots.