From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: scampi@dial.pipex.com (Mathew Hendry) Subject: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers Date: 1997/06/09 Message-ID: <19970609.5A1DA0.14F78@an194.du.pipex.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 247532357 Distribution: world References: <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com> <5n1261$qj6@polo.demon.co.uk> <19970602.433020.144E5@ai078.du.pipex.com> <33983ABE.26B2@sni.de> <19970606.49CA70.12B91@ae124.du.pipex.com> <5nh0th$dam$1@news.hal-pc.org> Organization: private node Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In comp.lang.c Jonathan Guthrie 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.