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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	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: Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers
Date: 1997/06/03
Message-ID: <5mvr45$i5u@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 246470927
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: AT&T WorldNet Services
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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