> 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? A long time ago I figured out that the purpose of life is to keep yourself out of situations where you start wondering what the purpose of life actually is. Yes, it's a recursive definition, but it still has value. This question is related and so I will avoid thinking about it. > 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? As a list admin, it means that people do or do not argue endlessly without externally verifiable statements of fact. I wish to avoid statements that are made as if they were solid facts and not just opinion that are not based in any accepted and duplicated experimental result. In the entire thread on top vs bottom posting, there was not one reference to an e.g. university study where one type was shown to cause less confusion or take less time... There were some examples where you could repeat that for yourself and see if it worked for you, but there were also a lot of statements of fact without backup. E.g. "This is better, no that is better" without any WHY it is better and without any qualifier that this is opinion. > 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? Certainly. But not on the PICList please. --- James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin mailto:jamesnewton@piclist.com 1-619-652-0593 phone http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786 PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist