From: Massimiliano Mirra <list@...>
Date: 2002-06-05T07:54:07+09:00
Subject: Re: OT:is software eng an art?

On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 02:25:45PM +0900, Sean Russell wrote:
> 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.  

Well, that works within a model.  Actually, most of the geometry we
deal with works within a model, a room Euclid built with Point, Line
and Plane as walls, and geometry is about the ways a ball thrown
inside that room can bounce.

Clearly one has to stay within those walls for it to work.

> the basic science itself was not open to interpretation.  
> There was a thing called Mars, and it moved about in the sky, and the task 
> was to figure out how, or at least by what rules.  The "why" will always be 
> a mystery (unless we find out when we die) but the "hows" we can more or 
> less answer, with increasing accuracy as our science evolves.

Funny one could put `art' on top of that and still have it apply.  In
many paintings ``there is a thing called Red, which hit by light
absorbs part of it and reflects something else back.  The "why" of the
artist will always be a mistery.  The "hows" we can more or less
answer, with increasing accuracy as our understanding of his
techniques evolve.''

> There are no "answers" for Art.  

You're assuming you've asked all the questions. ;-)
 

Massimiliano