Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!andersen!tsarver
From: tsarver@andersen.uucp (Tom Sarver)
Subject: Re: Art vs. Engineering
Message-ID: <1991May20.145605.28976@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mr. News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: 192.42.140.1
Organization: Andersen Consulting
References: <1991May16.231300.13345@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> <1343@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 14:56:05 GMT
Lines: 42

In article <1343@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> chrisp@regenmeister.EBay.Sun.COM (Chris Prael) writes:
>From article <1991May16.231300.13345@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, by tsarver@andersen.uucp (Tom Sarver):
>
>   [Deleted discussion on references versus experimentation.]
> 
>> In _...Scientific Revolutions_, Kuhn describes a period called "pre-
>> paradigm in which participants are attempting to model the results of
>> emperical studies (formal and informal) into a paradigm.  This paradigm
>> enables them to discuss findings in a common arena of terms.  The
>> discipline matures when the paradigm is found to account for a large
>> percentage of phenomena.  The discipline then enters an "engineering"
>> phase in which people use the results of the discipline to advance
>> someone's external goals (society's, an evil genius', etc.)  
>
>This is an interesting speculation, but it is historically inacurate, 
>hence bad science.  If you read the history of most scientific 
>developments, particularly in physics, you will find that most of the 
>major advances were the result of significant engineering advances.  
>Major engineering advances, on the other hand, have come most often from 
>advances in materials (engineering, though we now call it "material 
>science", other engineering advances, or scientific advances).
>

The statement above is a one-paragraph summary of a *BOOK*!  This book
was written by an historian, and therefore, my summary stands.  However,
I did not rule out the fact that science and engineering can, and do,
work together.  In fact, the Shaw's article graphically shows how this
occurs.

The point of my posting is that software engineering hasn't really reached
the "engineering" phase.  We simply don't have well codified knowledge.

>  [Deleted some discussion of Einstein's training.]
>
>Chris Prael

--Tom Sarver
tsarver@andersen.com
Andersen Consulting
100 S. Wacker
Suite 900
Chicago, IL  60606
