From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: scampi@dial.pipex.com (Mathew Hendry) Subject: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers Date: 1997/06/11 Message-ID: <19970611.468DE8.47AF@af033.du.pipex.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 247774751 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$1@news.hal-pc.org> <19970609.5A1DA0.14F78@an194.du.pipex.com> <5nl4ck$ahj$1@news.hal-pc.org> Organization: private node Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jonathan Guthrie 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.