Brian Marick compares scientific progress with software development. Don't argue, just go read it.
It reminds me of an exercise in genetics. Professor Stewart dropped in on our weekly tutorial, and toward the end of the hour proposed a hypothesis for reproduction based on sugars instead of proteins[1]. The class introduced issues and experiments as Stewart refined his hypothesis to take them into account, until the class reached a dead end.
At this point, I remarked that it no longer mattered. The sugar hypothesis was identical in its predictions to the protein hypothesis - so it no longer mattered which model we used. Even if the sugar hypothesis is correct, it is irrelevent - until it makes some new prediction.
Similarly, the actual correctness of a theory isn't particularly relevent until we enter a problem domain where the predictions fail. The Newtownian model of mechanics is wrong - but that didn't prevent a whole bunch of progress. Sine theta doesn't equal theta - but you can reach accurate conclusions from that premise.
[1] That's how I remember it, but DNA is a sugar, isn't it? with a phosphate backbone and nucleotide bases. I wonder if I'm misremembering some enzyme process.
April 29, 2003 12:04 PM
| TrackBack