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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
From: "Matthew S. Whiting" <?whiting?@epix.net>
Subject: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers
Date: 1997/06/03
Message-ID: <3394D229.5B76@epix.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 245933443
References: <JSA.97May14201336@alexandria>
 <EACHUS.97May23174831@spectre.mitre.org> <5m57nu$7si@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>
 <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu> <5md1fl$9f4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>
 <5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> <dewar.865041126@merv>
 <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>
Organization: epix Internet Services
Reply-To: ?whiting?@epix.net
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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.