[SystemSafety] Logic

Martyn Thomas martyn at thomas-associates.co.uk
Tue Feb 18 17:48:38 CET 2014


On 18/02/2014 16:10, Derek M Jones wrote:
> Some of the points in this article on QuackWatch provide good advice
> to anybody who wants to evaluate the claims of formal methods
> proponents:
> http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html 

Derek

That feels to me like abuse. If you want to discuss the merits of formal
methods, let's do it professionally.

I see this table in the article that you reference. I think that the
work on formal methods by computer scientists meets the definition of
Science in the table (except that we are not discussing physical
processes, so /mutatis mutandis)/, whereas the criticisms of formal
methods seem more closely to correspond with Pseudoscience.  I can give
you examples to match most of the boxes in the left-hand column. Can you
do the same for your claim that formal methods do not scale to more than
the simplest problem?

Martyn


*Science* 	*Pseudoscience*
Their findings are expressed primarily through scientific journals that
are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous standards for honesty and
accuracy. 	The literature is aimed at the general public. There is no
review, no standards, no pre-publication verification, no demand for
accuracy and precision.
Reproducible results are demanded; experiments must be precisely
described so that they can be duplicated exactly or improved upon.
Results cannot be reproduced or verified. Studies, if any, are always so
vaguely described that one can't figure out what was done or how it was
done.
Failures are searched for and studied closely, because incorrect
theories can often make correct predictions by accident, but no correct
theory will make incorrect predictions.  	Failures are ignored, excused,
hidden, lied about, discounted, explained away, rationalized, forgotten,
avoided at all costs.
As time goes on, more and more is learned about the physical processes
under study. 	No physical phenomena or processes are ever found or
studied. No progress is made; nothing concrete is learned.
Convinces by appeal to the evidence, by arguments based upon logical
and/or mathematical reasoning, by making the best case the data permit.
When new evidence contradicts old ideas, they are abandoned. 	Convinces
by appeal to faith and belief. Pseudoscience has a strong
quasi-religious element: it tries to convert, not to convince. You are
to believe in spite of the facts, not because of them. The original idea
is never abandoned, whatever the evidence.
Does not advocate or market unproven practices or products. 	Generally
earns some or all of his living by selling questionable products (such
as books, courses, and dietary supplements) and/or pseudoscientific
services (such as horoscopes, character readings, spirit messages, and
predictions).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20140218/59b3340d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the systemsafety mailing list