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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,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: 103376,1042f393323e22da
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
From: john@polo.demon.co.uk (John Winters)
Subject: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers
Date: 1997/06/03
Message-ID: <5n1261$qj6@polo.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 245862630
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: polo.demon.co.uk [158.152.105.238]
References: <JSA.97May14201336@alexandria> <5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>
 <dewar.865041126@merv> <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>
Organization: Spirit software
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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.