Re: Why is OO Popular?

From: Thomas Gagné (tgagne_at_wide-open-west.com)
Date: 05/04/04 

Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 10:02:52 -0400

Eric Kaun wrote:

>
>
>This is just great - having advanced philosophy, math, logic, linguistics,
>and science over thousands of years, it's time to base our computer systems
>on the interactions of young children.
>
>Should we introduce CPU nap times as well?
>
>
>
No, but it sounds like programmer nap times are a good idea!

How much of the science have you just identified that actually damages
your argument? Philosophy strives for simple explanations to complex
phenomena. Math tries to reduce expressions to their simplest forms.
Logic is simple. Linguistics are complicated, but we all appreciate the
utility of a simple, well crafted statement over a more complicated
one. Science is always looking for the simple explanation. Occam's
razor. e=mc2, etc.

As far as humans are concerned, children are about as simple as you can
get--and thankfully haven't had 12+ years of crap telling them what
things are. The interact naturally without thinking about what they're
thinking about.

To follow your argument, to catch a ball I would have to calculate its
trajectory, its starting speed, air density and friction, its mass, the
affect of gravity, gross motor skills, and any number of things just to
catch a ball thrown at me. Perhaps some of us do (or try to which is
why some aren't athletically inclined) but I suspect not. Children do
all kinds of things using much simpler models than those that propose
more complicated ones must exist and be understood. The evidence is to
the contrary (IMO).

Want to study how brains work? Study the simple ones. Want to study
intelligence? Observe the development of a child from birth through the
first 12 months and measure what it is they've discovered without the
benefits of philosophy, math, logic, linguistics and science.

Using your argument nothing would be developed (including children)
because of the lack of a prerequisite education.

Or, I may have missed your whole point because I lack the
prerequisites. Time to roll a ball to my 9-month old to see if he's
conquered motor skills, friction, acceleration/deceleration,
objects-in-motion, etc.

> <snip>
>
>
>
>
> 

-- 
.tom
remove email address' dashes for replies
opensource middleware at <http://isectd.sourceforge.net>
<http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why is OO Popular?
    ... > catch a ball thrown at me. ... > benefits of philosophy, math, logic, linguistics and science. ... and math ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: The Intellectual Origin of Positivism
    ... It occurs to me that sicence is but an expression of science and not ... Well, sport, division is somewhat more than a philosophy of devision. ... >philosophicly for ages, most, if not all math is pursued this way. ... >fail even to address your heading that invokes positivism, ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages - 7th evidence
    ... >> remarked that Popper's philosophy of science is very much more popular ... >> with scientists than contemporary philosophers of science. ... Everyone outside linguistics accepts Chomsky's preeminence in the ... is protected by the Hoary Hosts of Husserl ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Reconciling the religious and scientific views on the origin of life [was Re: Evolution]
    ... >> Glenn wrote: ... calculus is a branch of math ... Philosophy of science would be Popper and Kuhn. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • paper: Meaning, Language, Cognition
    ... is diabolically hard to study. ... Science Miscellaneous features sci-tech news, philosophy of science, ... philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, computer science, linguistics, ...
    (sci.cognitive)