[PLUG] Slightly OT: PCC software engineering program

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Jeff Schwaber wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 19:44, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > Engineers aren't scientists.  Teachers aren't scientists.  Farmers are
> > not scientists.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
>
> Ah...actually, Engineering is based on the science of physics.

Some engineering is based on the science of physics.  Engineering is
applying science for design and implementation.  It doesn't matter what
science you're attempting to apply to the real world.  It's all
engineering.

> It isn't a science, because there's intuition involved, but it is
> heavily based on the science of physics.

Physics is an attempt by human beings to describe perception of physical
phenomena within the framework of a normal human brain's logic circuitry.
There are ways in which a strong understanding of that perception can be
reverse-applied to the real world in an attempt to attain some other
condition of existence.  But physics, like all sciences, is inherently
limited (to human perception, the limits of calculability, scope of
understood influences, etc.) and so we have artistry.

Brain logic (which we formalize as mathematics) became standard in the
human being because it was good enough.  There's no reason to believe it
is exactly analogous to the guiding principles of the objective universe.
It's nice for us to think that it is because a) it makes is feel like
we're capable of understanding things even if we're not and b) we don't
have any alternative way of investigating and formalizing that is
describable and reproducible and we seem to have a deep drive to
investigate and formalize.

In other words, science is as faulty as any other method of human thought,
but it unfortunately carries with it an unjustifiable air of certainty and
absolute truth.

As the decisions we make (based on science that is not necessarily
objectively true for many possible reasons) become larger and larger with
greater and greater reaching impact, we need to take into account both the
limitations of existing science and our own minds and recognize that
truth, beauty, love, and justice come as much from intuition and chance as
from calculation and machination.

> Same with farming and agricultural science, although to a lesser extent.

Agricultural science is not engineering at all.  (And I would even argue
that farming is distinct from agricultural engineering.)

> Teachers aren't scientists, and educational science doesn't really
> exist, which may account for there being such a huge discrepancy between
> the quality of teachers. Same with Software Engineers, because it's not
> truly based on Computer Science, or Software Engineering Science, or
> whatever you'd call it. It's based on theories which everybody disagrees
> about. At least if you ask an engineer what theories he's basing his
> next project on, he can give you theories of physics which are generally
> agreed on.

But if you ask him WHY he's doing the work, he'll give you intuitive
theories upon which people are deeply divided (or at least for which you
can find several equally valid, opposing views).

And, of course, the devil is in the details.  This hypothetical engineer
is basing his design decisions on principles of physics and hopefully
there is an engineer elsewhere analyzing the impact of the design (again,
based on scientific principles).  But there is no methodology for
accounting for all factors in the real world.  It's transcendental in
nature.  And there's no telling which of the factors that the engineer was
unable to include or comprehend might vastly change the outcome of the
project.

To my mind, science belongs in a laboratory and should be brought into the
real world sparingly and with great care and consideration.

> > Science has its place (that is, the advancement of human
> > self-knowledge and understanding).  Those other folks have more base
> > concerns.  Both are pretty darned important.
>
> Yes, and intuitive, creative, productive processes are frequently done
> better on a large scale when based on empirically testable science.

The larger the scale, the harder it is for a person to get their head
around it and account for everything that matters and take responsibility
for things that are effected.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org