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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,447bd1cf7a88c198
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-09 12:08:09 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!newsfeed.rt.ru!news.tele.dk!151.189.0.75!newsfeed.germany.net!uni-erlangen.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news.fh-hannover.de!news.cid.net!news.enyo.de!news1.enyo.de!not-for-mail
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Do we need "Mission-Critical" software? Was: What to Do?
Date: 09 Jan 2001 21:11:06 +0100
Organization: Enyo's not your organization
Message-ID: <87vgromqp1.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
References: <3A4F5A4A.9ABA2C4F@chicagonet.net> <3A4F759E.A7D63F3F@netwood.net>
 <3A50ABDF.3A8F6C0D@acm.org> <92qdnn$jfg$1@news.huji.ac.il>
 <3A50C371.8B7B871@home.com> <3A51EC04.91353CE7@uol.com.br>
 <3A529C97.2CA4777F@home.com> <3A53CB9E.EA7CF86C@uol.com.br>
 <3A5466DE.811D43A5@acm.org> <932aol$ikc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <932mi6$r2k$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <9343b1$3g5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <934iuf$eqv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <934kt2$gbh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <937jvn$si3$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93bv37$43b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93e2d1$spv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93eoku$cm2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93f6jl$mf7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3831
Date: 2001-01-09T21:11:06+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> After all an exception generally DISPROVES a rule, that is
> what scientific progress is all about. One violation of a
> theory in experiment is enough to reject the theory, or at
> least require its refinement.

Few people are familiar with the logic of scientific discovery 
(I've to admit that I didn't read my copy either).  In German, 
we have a proverbial phase in the opposite direction as well 
(something along 'exceptions support the rule'), but no one 
I know uses it in a technical sense or in empirical sciences.

Of course, the whole idea of progress by conjectures and refutations
is not unanimously accepted in non-empirical scienses, I think.  Most
theories are considered good enough as long as they are sound and the
exceptions are so queer that nobody is inclined to bother about them.