From: Rick Bradley <rick@...>
Date: 2002-05-12T14:38:28+09:00
Subject: Re: OT:is software eng an art?

[ Forgive me for bowing out of the discussion after blowing at the fire
with the bellows (so to say).  I'm in the midst of doing a bunch of
stories for a project I'm porting to Ruby, so I figured I'd do the Ruby
world more good by sticking to that than waxing philosophical... ]

* Sean Russell (ser@germane-software.com) [020512 00:28]:
> Theories are certainly a part of science, and this is probably where the art 
> of science comes into play.  However, science as "laws of nature" is not 
> open to interpretation.  The laws that governed the Greeks haven't changed.  
> Pythagorus' theorem is still relevant.  What they thought the /causes/ were 
> are different, but the measured, recorded events are the same.  Math /is/ 
> universal, and unchanging -- as far as we know.

This is an appeal to the objective by resorting to objectivity -- i.e., 
it's begging the question.  Of course the Objective (if it exists) is
objective.  ;-)

> > in the US find that phrase to be kind of quaint in it's outlook. Now we
> > have more of a feelling that 'Science' is fallable.
> 
> Yes.  Does the public perception of the fallability of science in any way 
> affect it's validity?

It really comes down to what criteria we set for "validity".  Earlier I
argued that science (see also art) is empty outside of society, under
which criteria public perception (see also politics) is the criterion
for validity.  This does not presuppose an Objective independent of
science and art which those fields by different means attempt to probe
indirectly.  

In a realm of discourse where "laws of nature" (i.e., unattainable
objectivity which we measure subjectively through our instruments) are
the phenomena of science then "validity" is independent of perception --
because we're really measuring with the yardstick of "validity" whether
the Objective is objective.

> And I spend way too much money on gadgets, but if there's one common
> trait amongst programmers, I'd place my money on that.

I think I'm willing to grant that as Objectively objectively True. ;-)

Rick
-- 
 http://www.roundeye.net    MUPRN: 513    (81 F)
                       |  with their request and
   random email haiku  |  a request to terminate
                       |  services to *you*.