From: Dossy <dossy@...>
Date: 2002-05-12T13:21:41+09:00
Subject: Re: OT:is software eng an art?

On 2002.05.12, Rick Bradley <rick@rickbradley.com> wrote:
> Scientists (and scientific historians) would like us to believe that the
> product and foundation of science is Truth and the Objective, and that
> the tools of science are method and process, but the entire history of
> science belies this -- the scientist is a creator, his most valuable
> tool is inspiration, all else is benchwork.  When his product is Good it
> is believed to hold by those with influence, but will ultimately fall to
> later theory and social bias.

In Art, one creates something from nothing or at best nothing more
than inspiration.

In Science, one creates something from only what is already known
to exist.  There is a web of trust (or a body of knowledge) that
they operate within.  While a scientist may be creative, his
output should not be.  It should all follow from things that
are already established.  A scientist that makes things up out
of thin air and is not supported by fact is not a scientist.
He's a philosopher.  *cheap shot*  *runs and hides*

-- Dossy
<philosopher at heart>

-- 
Dossy Shiobara                       mail: dossy@panoptic.com 
Panoptic Computer Network             web: http://www.panoptic.com/ 
  "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
    folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)