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: 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: john@polo.demon.co.uk (John Winters) Subject: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers Date: 1997/06/04 Message-ID: <5n2v8j$k8k@polo.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 245991077 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: polo.demon.co.uk [158.152.105.238] References: <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com> <5n1261$qj6@polo.demon.co.uk> <19970602.433020.144E5@ai078.du.pipex.com> Organization: Spirit software Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <19970602.433020.144E5@ai078.du.pipex.com>, Mathew Hendry wrote: >In comp.lang.c++ John Winters wrote: >: In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>, >: Mathew Hendry wrote: >: >In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >: > >: >: 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? > >On their explanatory power. Define. >: >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. > >Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can >distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my >crocodile theory. Why not? Given the facts exactly as you describe them, no right-minded scientist would have any excuse for preferring one theory over the other. Show me a scientist who - if there genuinely is *no* observable reason for rejecting a theory - nonetheless rejects it, and I'll show you an incompetent scientist. However the facts never are quite as you describe them. What makes an outlandish theory outlandish is that it doesn't fit the observable facts. The skill of the scientist is in devising tests which allow them to separate the good theories from the bad ones. John -- John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England.