Originally posted by gtbiking4life
You are making a couple errors. You still tested the program to be sure the flaw was correct. Simply because you found it to be correct does not mean you did not need a test to be certain.
Another error you are making is because someone spotted a flaw in a program does not mean you are correct in spotting a flaw in a giraffe. You are not giving any ...[text shortened]... y you don't. I believe you are 100% incorrect, and you have given nothing to tell me otherwise.
“…You still tested the program to be sure the flaw was correct. Simply because you found it to be correct does not mean you did not need a test to be certain…..”
There would bound to have been a few programs I made for university assignments that somebody else then spotted a really silly obvious flaw in it and, looking at what he pointed out, I could see he was correct; but then didn’t bother with the test because of time-constraints. The point is, I would have been 100% certain that it was a flaw even without the test. The test isn’t necessarily done to see if that flaw IS a flaw because a test could be done just to check that there is nothing else (including OTHER flaws) that I missed or, sometimes, to check that I correctly removed that flaw without simply replacing it with yet another flaw!
“…Another error you are making is because someone spotted a flaw in a program does not mean you are correct in spotting a flaw in a giraffe….”
No, and that is not the argument I am saying. But it DOES mean you COULD correctly spot a flaw without consulting a designer.
“….You are not giving any evidence to justify this….”
Why isn’t reason evidence? I would say I AM giving evidence without a “test”! The evidence is the known facts about biology and, particularly, the fact that, with all else being equal, the longer the nerve, the longer it takes for a message to be transmitted along its entire length. So it is an obvious flaw to make a nerve take an unnecessary long route when there is an obvious shortcut that could be used with nothing stopping that shortcut being used (other than the stupidity of evolution of course).
“….You NEED to test your assumption first before you can be certain….”
I am sure plenty of scientific tests have been done on nerve impulses in animal nerves. The “assumption” that, with all else being equal, the longer the nerve, the longer it takes for a message to be transmitted along its entire length, has already been given good credence by the evidence and does not require an additional test just because the nerve is in a giraffe’s neck.
gtbiking4life
If I have given an integer literal an invalid value by inserting letters instead of digits into its value, why would I need a “test” to see that that is an error? Surely all I have to know is the relevant rule of the language (integer values must only contain numerical digits) to know that it is an error –right?
A “test” would not be required to “increase” my certainty that it is an error if, just by knowing that it isn’t allowed, I am already 100% certain that it is an error –right?
Explain this to me please.
When designing a skydiving exercise, it would be an error to arrange for there to be no parashoots in the airplane?
Would a test be required to chick that this definitely an error? -Perhaps by throwing the skydivers out the airplane without their parashoots?