1. Joined
    03 Jul '10
    Moves
    518
    13 Sep '10 02:271 edit
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    “…Even in your computer program example - the one that was working - you checked it (tested it)…”

    Yes, and that test gave conformation that we were CORRECT in knowing that there was a flaw and we were correct to call it a flaw BEFORE the test. Thus this is proof we do not always need a test to know we have correctly spotted a flaw.

    “….You are g ...[text shortened]... ot all of them, just ONE of them ) without doing a test by simply looking at it and using logic?
    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 evidence to justify this. You NEED to test your assumption first before you can be certain and this you have not accomplished and it seems never will.

    A test is needed to verify your assumption with the giraffe. Without that you are left only with your assumption. It seems I say you need a test to be certain and you say you don't. I believe you are 100% incorrect, and you have given nothing to tell me otherwise.
  2. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    13 Sep '10 03:28
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    I think you have a point. No analogy is perfect. The problem with the CPU and the PROGRAM analogies is that, as you basically said; they didn’t simply “evolve” into existence! 😛

    The problem is that it is extremely had to find to use as an analogy an example of technology that was designed purely by mindless trial and error!
    As analogies always have faults, they cannot be used as proofs for any side. The line of debating CPUs is futile.

    It's a line of retorics by Kelly to bring the discussion away from the main problem - if the design of a giraffe is good or bad, intentinal or by random - and this serves Kellys point: Avoidance.

    Stay on topic. Discuss the giraffe. Not the implication if an amateur can spot a flaw in a CPU.
  3. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    13 Sep '10 09:372 edits
    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?
  4. Joined
    03 Jul '10
    Moves
    518
    13 Sep '10 12:211 edit
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    “…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 co ...[text shortened]... finitely an error? -Perhaps by throwing the skydivers out the airplane without their parashoots?
    I am uncertain how you can not see a difference between a computer program and a giraffe. You have written programs just like I have, however you have not created a giraffe and would not know how to. Your evidence, as you call it, is invalid to me. I stll stand by that you WOULD NEED to consult the designer regarding the giraffe having never created one yourself. You still only have an assumption.

    Let me turn this around and ask you a question.

    Would you agree that you are NOT certain the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe is a flaw? You only think it is, but can not be certain. Is this correct or not?
  5. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157652
    14 Sep '10 06:45
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I believe you are being dishonest. Its not quite the same thing.
    I believe you are deliberately avoiding certain questions to avoid admitting that you are wrong.
    I believe that you know perfectly well that it is conceivably possible that I, with little or no experience in the field, could correctly identify that something on a CPU was a flaw in the desi ...[text shortened]... is no fundamental law that prevents me from spotting it based on just a few relevant principles.
    It is the same thing as far as I'm concern, I can freely admit when I'm wrong, I
    do not however accuse you of being dishonest with me just because we disagree
    on a point which is what you’re doing to me. I can think you are in error, I can
    think a lot of things before I question your honesty. I’m done with you on this
    topic, and I’m not overly looking forward to discussing anything else with you
    either. I've given you several reasons why I disagree with you on this point, they
    were and are my honest opinions on the topic, like it or not!
    Kelly
  6. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    14 Sep '10 06:59
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    It is the same thing as far as I'm concern, I can freely admit when I'm wrong, I
    do not however accuse you of being dishonest with me just because we disagree
    on a point which is what you’re doing to me. I can think you are in error, I can
    think a lot of things before I question your honesty. I’m done with you on this
    topic, and I’m not overly looking f ...[text shortened]... you on this point, they
    were and are my honest opinions on the topic, like it or not!
    Kelly
    No, you just want to win the discussion.
    The truth is not important for you, winning is everything.
  7. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    21 Sep '10 09:44
    Originally posted by gtbiking4life
    I am uncertain how you can not see a difference between a computer program and a giraffe. You have written programs just like I have, however you have not created a giraffe and would not know how to. Your evidence, as you call it, is invalid to me. I stll stand by that you WOULD NEED to consult the designer regarding the giraffe having never created o ...[text shortened]... ve in a giraffe is a flaw? You only think it is, but can not be certain. Is this correct or not?
    “….I am uncertain how you can not see a difference between a computer program and a giraffe. You have written programs just like I have, however you have not created a giraffe and would not know how to….”

    Irrelevant: because you don’t necessarily need to know how to make something to correctly spot a flaw in that something.
    And it makes no difference whether that ‘something’ is a giraffe or a computer program.
    Somebody may not know how to make a program but DOES know that an integer literal cannot have non-numerical letters thus he can correctly spot this particular flaw in a program even if he cannot program.

    A cripple with no functional arms or legs cannot create a camera.
    Does that mean he cannot correctly spot the flaw of the connections to the light sensors of the camera being placed in front of those light sensors (where they would obscure vision) rather than behind?
    Point: like that cripple, I have limits that prevent me from creating a giraffe’s neck with lack of knowledge being just one of those limits so not being able to create something doesn’t prevent you from correctly spotting a flaw in that something.

    “…Would you agree that you are NOT certain the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe is a flaw?...”

    No; I can be absolutely certainly it is a flaw. The route it takes is obviously a pointlessly unnecessarily long one.
    Not that I need to be ABSOLUTELY certain (which I think seems to be what you imply here) to have correctly spotted a flaw!
    Why would I require ABSOLUTE certainty that what I think is a flaw is a flaw to be correct in my suspicions?
    Somebody may think that they have spotted a flaw in my program but are not sure but, never-a-less, is CORRECT in his suspicion. Would you deny that this is possible?

    “…You only think it is, but can not be certain….”

    I just happen to be certain in this case but, as I just pointed out, I don’t need to be certain to be correct so this is an irrelevant point.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree