Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Working Hypothesis -- what is the value?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 92 (735409)
08-13-2014 8:05 PM


The process of the scientific method involves starting with an hypothesis and then testing it.
Let us take the Yeti as an example (see YETI nother explanation?) ...
As yet there is questionable evidence that something exists (ie - footprints, reports of sightings), and now there is possible evidence of a bear related distantly to polar bears.
Bears (especially polar bears) tend to be solitary, and hibernate in caves, so this behavior fits the reported patterns of the "yeti" better than an ape (as they tend to live in family groups). White fur would also match polar bears.
So it seems to me that a good "working hypothesis" is that the yeti is a bear ...
... so now we come to the issue of the value of a "working hypothesis" -- what does it do?
Ostensibly it helps to formulate the search parameters for further information\evidence ...
... for those interested in pursuing the matter.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2014 11:30 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 4 by Jon, posted 08-14-2014 12:58 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 5 by Stile, posted 08-14-2014 11:20 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 27 by herebedragons, posted 08-18-2014 8:32 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 92 (735467)
08-16-2014 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by NoNukes
08-13-2014 11:30 PM


In any event, formulating h1 would seem to be the easier part, although I don't think it is as trivial as you are making it. Formulating h0 properly seems most important in studying a yeti that may or may not even exist.
And non-existence is notoriously hard to demonstrate ... which leaves falsification somewhat problematic ... which is why it would be a working hypothesis rather than a more formal scientific one.
Er, what "yeti" is a bear? ...
The creature found in anecdotal evidence from purported footprints and sightings and that has been given the name "yeti" by to local people (Sherpas) in the area.
... Let's say that you confirm the existence of some kind of huge, funky, white bear. Is that the yeti?
Does it explain the evidence?
Message 11: There are bears in the Himalayas. There just don't seem to be many polar bears. And of course not all yeti sightings are supposed to be white. I'm not sure that most of them are white.
Which means the hypothesis that what is identified variously as yeti evidence is more likely to be due to a bear, yes?
On the other hand, finding an unknown ape/primate would be far more convincing ...
Yet this is more of a westernized version of the sherpa legend isn't it?
If a bear is found, is this sufficient reason to say that it is not the legendary yeti because it is not an ape? Wouldn't that be letting preconceptions bias your conclusion?
... What new evidence is likely to be found by following up on RAZD's working hypothesis?
It seems to me that most of the ("westernized") investigations to date have been predicated on the legendary creature being an ape, so this would change that focus.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2014 11:30 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 08-16-2014 4:12 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 92 (735541)
08-17-2014 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NoNukes
08-16-2014 4:12 PM


Example 2 -- building code structural standards
I'm not the least bit interested in a non scientific investigation into whether Yeti's exist.
So your world revolves around scientific knowledge and stuff that can be ignored (everything else).
Let's try a different tack and look at how working hypothesis actually provide practical guides: the universal building code as it applies to structures is based in part on a some working knowledge of physics and materials, but also on a whole lot of historical experience and some basic assumptions.
The physical guides are fairly limited (stress\strain equations, material bending\shear strengths, etc) and there are a lot of unknowns (future loading, material quality\consistency, etc.). So the process of developing the code has been by and large the experience of what works, using the formulas to back calculate from what works to form a hypothetical basis for future design and throwing in a factor of safety to account for variations in the unknowns ... and then upping the requirements whenever failure occurs that is not due to flagrant misuse, bad construction or bad materials ... ie - increase the factor of safety to account for the unknowns.
The building code structure is basically a "cookbook" design process: follow the hypothetical calculation steps and you can bake a cake or build a house. It is not developed from first principals but it is a working hypothesis for determining what is required based on what has worked in the past.
Is it falsifiable? Not really ... structural failure doesn't falsify the system, and the solution is usually to increase the strength in future designs using exactly the same process by changing factors (loading factors, safety factors).
So you could say that the basis of a good working hypothesis is: if it works, use it.
That would seem to offer a lot of practical use without involving the need for falsification.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 08-16-2014 4:12 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 08-17-2014 8:14 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 92 (735568)
08-18-2014 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by NoNukes
08-17-2014 8:14 PM


Example 3 -- storm sewer design
Is that what I said, or did I limit my remarks to investigations into whether Yeti's exist?
Just taking your comment to it's logical conclusion ... "I'm not the least bit interested in a non scientific investigation into whether [X] exist(s)" would mean ignoring anything not covered by scientific investigations ... or you are inconsistent in what you choose to ignore or not ignore based on some other paradigm.
However that may be, it curiously does not answer the issue of working hypothesis that are not necessarily falsifiable even though they can (and do) provide plenty of practical usage of information.
RAZD, Message 16: The building code structure is basically a "cookbook" design process: follow the hypothetical calculation steps and you can bake a cake or build a house. It is not developed from first principals but it is a working hypothesis for determining what is required based on what has worked in the past.
Is it falsifiable? Not really ... structural failure doesn't falsify the system, ...
... because all the other building built to the code don't all fail when one building does. My house, for instance was built in 1795 (+/- 5) and as a result it does not meet current code for structural design, yet it has been standing for over 200 years.
Engineers to a lot of things by applying working hypothesis to problems and developing practical solutions.
Like storm sewer designs ... it is costly and time consuming to put in the biggest storm sewer possible, as well as being impractical for places with little rain, so how do you balance time and cost versus the occurrence of flooding events?
The standard approach is to do an evaluation of the historic record of rainfall and developing a curve of frequency of storms of different amounts of rainfall and then picking a practical time period (often 50 years, rarely more than 100 years), and then using the rainfall for that frequency period in calculating the quantity of water that the sewer would need to carry.
Nothing to falsify there ... if the system floods then that is part of the design, even if it happens twice in 50 years ... it's a working hypothesis based on probabilities after all ...
But it is also based on some knowledge of the characteristics of the ground -- how much water that falls ends up as runoff and how fast -- and these conditions can change ... and that doesn't falsify the design either.
Working hypothesis provide many practical solutions to design problems based on historical information and often some trial and error adjustment in their applications, without having to provide a falsification test for pragmatic use.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 08-17-2014 8:14 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2014 8:05 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 08-18-2014 9:33 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 92 (735575)
08-18-2014 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
08-18-2014 2:42 AM


Re: Example 4 -- bridge design
in Creation Museum a House of Cards Sitting on Old Old Earth Rocks Message 60 Tangle says
I would say that an engineer carries out an empirical test of an scientific theory every time he builds a bridge.
What theory? How is it falsified?
And I would say that they are not looking to falsify the (theory), but rather to make a practical application, and they throw on a factor of safety to help guard against failure and unknown stresses ... they are using a working hypothesis.
This is what I mean by saying that engineering is the art of applying science for practical purposes.
They may get all 'sciency' in running controlled tests of things like the strengths of materials and even wear lab coats, but their purpose\focus is not to falsify theory but to find ways to make practical applications.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2014 2:42 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 08-18-2014 9:49 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 22 by Tangle, posted 08-18-2014 11:34 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 92 (735606)
08-18-2014 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tangle
08-18-2014 11:34 AM


Re: Example 4 -- bridge design
It wouldn't be possible to build modern bridges over the spans we need and materials we use, without an enormous quantity of physics. And the idea that a practitioner can not be a scientist is away with the fairies.
Yet the engineer is basically a technician applying cook-book rules to the design, rules that he does not develop. Other engineers that check the calculations do the same thing, go through the same recipe.
The amount of physics is actually rather limited in my experience, amounting to some standard set of mathematical models of material behavior (bending moments, shear loads, moments of inertia).
The Romans built bridges without and engineer with a BSc ...
You're normally quite sane, you must have Faith withdrawal symptoms.
One of the things that distinguishes science from creationism is the use of the scientific method, agreed?
If you do everything involved with the scientific method except have a falsifiable hypothesis, are you doing science?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tangle, posted 08-18-2014 11:34 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 08-18-2014 6:04 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 08-18-2014 6:07 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 26 by herebedragons, posted 08-18-2014 8:26 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 92 (735620)
08-19-2014 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by NoNukes
08-18-2014 9:33 AM


Re: Example 3 -- storm sewer design
... Nothing you discover using such a hypothesis will ever allow you to reach the conclusion that sightings of Yeti's were erroneous.
So you would agree that such a working hypothesis would be unfalsifiable.
... It should be quite clear that such a strategy is subject to confirmation bias. ...
And it would also be subject to confirmation of denial bias ...
The question is whether it would lead to avenues of exploration that have not yet been pursued, such as looking at migratory and winter hibernation patterns in bears to see if that explains the anecdotal evidence.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 08-18-2014 9:33 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2014 9:25 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2014 9:31 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 92 (735621)
08-19-2014 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by NoNukes
08-18-2014 9:49 AM


Re: Example 4 -- bridge design
... When the bridge performs as expected, that is at least a partial verification that the underlying calculations based on physics and material properties was correct. ...
But the point is that the design is not being done for the purpose of verification of the principles, the purpose is to provide a practical use of those principals -- the bridge. This is done by using that knowledge and assumed loading as a working hypothesis AND then throwing on a factor of safety to help ensure that those principles are NOT tested.
... Those things would generally not be considered hypotheses.
The reason for the factor of safety is because the calculation results are hypothetical, the loading patterns used for the calculations are hypothetical ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by NoNukes, posted 08-18-2014 9:49 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2014 9:33 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 92 (735622)
08-19-2014 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
08-18-2014 6:04 PM


Re: Example 4 -- bridge design
Besides that, civil engineers may well be the most cook book segment of the engineering profession. It is the much denigrated sister of mechanical engineering.
Like the joke about the braggart at a party talking about how, as a mechanical engineer, he designed weapons systems to blow up buildings and bridges, then asking what the other person does, who replies that as a civil engineer he designs targets?
What is your experience? ...
Curiously I have designed many structures ... my first degree is a BSc in Civil Engineering ... so I do know what I am talking about eh?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 08-18-2014 6:04 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 92 (735624)
08-19-2014 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tangle
08-18-2014 6:07 PM


Re: Example 4 -- bridge design
But, by your admission, you're not a scientist nor a structural engineer, so you have ruled your opinion out by your own standards
Not quite right. Currently I am a designer, but In the past I have been a structural engineer and I have run some biological experiments (in a lab, with a lab coat ... ), complete with forming hypothesis and validating them ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 08-18-2014 6:07 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Tangle, posted 08-19-2014 2:02 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 92 (735627)
08-19-2014 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by herebedragons
08-18-2014 8:26 PM


a scientist is ...
...... the term scientist describes an occupation - a person who engages in a systematic activity in order to acquire knowledge. ...
Agreed, and I would similarly characterize the term engineer to describe an occupation - a person who engages in a systematic activity in order to use\apply knowledge for practical purposes.
For example, I would say my current occupation is a scientist. However, I have been working in the lab for about 8 weeks now and have not once developed an hypothesis or even tested a falsifiable premise. My primary job is to characterize a soil fungus (Rhizoctonia solani) isolated from dry beans in East Africa. I am going about that characterization in a systematic way and the product of my work will simply be the knowledge associated with that characterization (which will include some practical applications such as resistant varieties of beans). Even the controlled experiment I conducted was more of an application experiment rather than a falsifiable testing of an hypothesis.
Sound similar (albeit more extensive) to work I did on streams in N. Carolina to identify bacteria and measure dissolved oxygen levels and also to identify sources of pollution ...
Also, another point, I will use a lot of statistics in my job but that doesn't make me a statistician because it is not my primary purpose. So in that sense I agree, an engineer would not be a scientist just because during the course of their work they apply the scientific method. They are engineers because their primary function is to produce usable products through applied science. I don't think it is an issue of them not applying the scientific method but that their end goal is to produce usable products ratehr than basic knowledge.
Exactly. And just as a scientist in one field will accept the information developed in another field without testing it in order to apply it in their field, an engineer accepts the information developed in science to apply it to designs. The purpose is to design practical applications, and so a factor of safety is used to help ensure that failure is not tested ...
So back to how this all got started, Walt Brown is not a scientist because he does not engage in systematic activity in order to acquire knowledge; ...
Agreed. Nor is someone who engages in a systematic activity to apply knowledge a scientist, imho.
... not because he has a mechanical engineering degree ...
Which was the 'appeal to authority' fallacy by mram ...
... whether he is an authority on any of the issues he writes about would depend on not only the degree he has but also the occupation he engages in; a degree alone does not makes one an authority. I would say he is more of a science fiction writer.
Curiously, I would say that it depends on the occupation a person engages in regardless of degree -- a high school student can be a scientist by engaging in a "systematic activity in order to acquire knowledge" using the scientific method (some amazing stuff done for science fairs eh?).
This is why I differentiate between engineers (in general, based on degrees and occupation) and scientists. If one or two engineers engage in science it does not make the field and all the other engineers science.
Enjoy
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Did [/qs] for 1 quote box.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by herebedragons, posted 08-18-2014 8:26 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 92 (735628)
08-19-2014 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by herebedragons
08-18-2014 8:32 PM


How is a "working hypothesis" different than a regular hypothesis?
Would you clarify for me what you mean by the term "working hypothesis?" How is that different than a regular hypothesis?
I have used the term myself but meant it to mean a hypothesis that can be used to develop testable predictions. You seem to be using the term in a slightly different way, I'm not quite sure.
An hypothesis that can be a guide to further investigation, develop an approach to a problem,
Working hypothesis - Wikipedia
quote:
A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research[1] in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails.[2] Like all hypotheses, a working hypothesis is constructed as a statement of expectations, which can be linked to the exploratory research [3] purpose in empirical investigation and is often used as a conceptual framework in qualitative research.[4][5]
Charles Sanders Peirce came to hold that an explanatory hypothesis is not only justifiable as a tentative conclusion by its plausibility (by which he meant its naturalness and economy of explanation),[7] but also justifiable as a starting point by the broader promise that the hypothesis holds for research. This idea of justifying a hypothesis as potentially fruitful (at the level of research method), not merely as plausible (at the level of logical conclusions), is essential for the idea of a working hypothesis, as later elaborated by Peirce's fellow pragmatist John Dewey.
John Dewey used the concept of the working hypothesis as a pivotal feature in his theory of inquiry.[14] Contrary to the principles of verification and falsifiability, used in formal hypothesis testing found within dominant paradigms of 'normal' science,[15] working hypotheses were conceived by Dewey as neither true nor false but "provisional, working means of advancing investigation," which lead to the discovery of other unforeseen but "relevant" facts.[16] Dewey's development of the concept of the working hypothesis emerged from his contextualist epistemology in which absolute truth is unobtainable and replaced by "warranted assertability".[17]
As such it is less formal than a scientific hypothesis that has falsifiability as a criteria. More like an educated guess ...
If a working hypothesis is fruitful it can lead to a scientific hypothesis and further investigation.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : /quote

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by herebedragons, posted 08-18-2014 8:32 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 92 (735629)
08-19-2014 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by NoNukes
08-19-2014 9:25 AM


working hypothesis is a hypothesis used as a basis for further inquiry or design
The term "hypothetical" here simply means calculated or estimated. It does not mean that the forces are a "working hypothesis" which appears to mean simply an explanation that RAZD neither falsifies or lets go of for any reason.
You don't KNOW what the actual loading will be or how the bridge will be used in the future, so you develop several hypothetical scenarios of loading to use as a basis for the calculations. It is the application of the hypothesis as a basis for actual design that makes it a working hypothesis.
You can't test that the loading is what will really happen (you can't test the future events), so it isn't falsifiable, so it isn't a scientific hypothesis as that term is normally used.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2014 9:25 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2014 12:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 92 (735630)
08-19-2014 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by NoNukes
08-19-2014 9:31 AM


confirmation of denial bias
And it would also be subject to confirmation of denial bias ...
Apparently not. The fact that your process cannot cast any doubt on the hypothesis is exactly the problem.
And yet here you are, confirming your bias of denial ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2014 9:31 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 44 of 92 (735631)
08-19-2014 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by NoNukes
08-19-2014 9:33 AM


Re: Example 4 -- bridge design
But the point is that the design is not being done for the purpose of verification of the principles, the purpose is to provide a practical use of those principals -- the bridge.
Agreed. That's why civil engineers are not scientists.
And, curiously, that is why engineers in general are not scientists, because "the point is that the design is not being done for the purpose of verification of the principles, the purpose is to provide a practical use of those principals" ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2014 9:33 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 08-20-2014 9:37 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024