James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> Ah well... Perhaps this is becoming a religious argument? If so, I
> apologize. I see this clearly, but find it hard to convey. Perhaps I am
> wrong, or perhaps it is just not something that can be known.

Funny you should write that. The other day, I read another comment from you
with your list admin hat on that referred to this distinction between the
knowable and the unknowable. And that got me thinking... is there really
anything knowable? 

If there is, how do I know that I know? To take one off the list up front:
IMO Popper science doesn't count as "known" or "knowable", because by its
own definition it's not known; it's assumed until something better comes
around. Seems to me that thinking something is known is largely the realm
of religion (from the inside), but from the outside that's usually regarded
as "believing" rather than "knowing". So while the person may think she
knows, the others may think she believes... How does one /know/ one knows?

If there is not, what does this distinction exactly mean for you?


To throw in another thought: IMO a very important part of good engineering
is to make sure the unknowable is reasonably contained, "reasonably"
meaning finding a balance between the cost/effort and the (of course
unknown) probability of the unknown :)  And there's lots of this unknowable
stuff: imprecision or outright errors in data sheets and component
characteristic fluctuation, the client's mind and how it expresses itself
in requirements, the actual real-life conditions when using a product,
compiler implementations and operating system interactions, my state of
mind at 03:00, ...

Maybe the unknowable does have its place in engineering? 

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist