Answer quotes

From Motley Bytes Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Jim_Baggott

The Copernican Principle

“The Copernican Principle. The universe is not organized for our benefit and we are not uniquely privileged observers. Science strives to remove ‘us’ from the centre of the picture, making our existence a natural consequence of reality rather than the reason for it. Empirical reality is therefore something that we have learned to observe with detachment, without passion. Scientists ask fundamental questions about how reality works and seek answers in the evidence from observation and experiment, irrespective of their own personal preferences, prejudices and beliefs.”
  • Source: Baggott, Jim. Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth (p. 23). Pegasus Books. New York, NY

F_Terry_Baker

Code Library

“The most important of these is a development support library which encourages the visibility and manageability of the product, as well as reduces clerical effort on the part of the programmers. The library is typically maintained and operated by a programming librarian who serves to control the programming assets and to provide the necessary services for both programmers and management. As a result of its use, the entire project is maintained in a centralized, up-to-date, visible form which makes its status immediately apparent to code-competent software managers and makes it possible for programmers to answer their questions directly without relying on others.”
  • Source: Baker, F. T. (1975). Software Management Through Improved Programming Technology. ACM ’75: Proceedings of the 1975 Annual Conference, 286–287. https://doi.org/10.1145/800181.810346

Robert_N_Britcher

When to Stop Testing

“Two of the great questions in developing computer systems are (1) When do we stop testing? and (2) At any point during testing, how far along are we? The second question cannot be answered until the first one has been answered. The first question can be answered by fiat.”
  • Source: Britcher, Robert N. (1999). The Limits of Software: People, Projects, and Perspectives. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-201-43323-0. Page 61.

Alistair_Cockburn

People Characteristics

"People, as active devices, have success modes and failure modes. The following are the main ones that I have named and used to date:
1. People are communicating beings, doing best face-to-face, in person, with real-time question and answer.
2. People have trouble acting consistently over time.
3. People are highly variable, varying from day to day and place to place.
4. People generally want to be good citizens, are good at looking around, taking initiative, and doing 'whatever is needed' to get the project to work.
There are other characteristics that I won’t expand here:
- People need both think time and communicating opportunities...
- People work well from examples...
- People prefer to fail conservatively than to risk succeeding differently; prefer to invent than to research, can only keep a small amount in their heads, and do make mistakes, and find it hard to change their habits.
- Individual personalities easily dominate a project.
- A person’s personality profile strongly affects their ability to perform specific assignments."

Mihaly_Csikszentmihalyi

Religion

“Religions are only temporarily successful attempts to cope with the lack of meaning in life; they are not permanent answers... The form in which religions have presented their truths — myths, revelations, holy texts — no longer compels belief in an era of scientific rationality.”
  • Source: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in the book “Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience“, chapter “The Shields of Culture”, page 14. Original content published by Harper Perennial Modern Classics in 1990. Kindle edition published by Harper Collins in 2008. ISBN: 978-0061876721.

Freeman_Dyson

Science and Society

“In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, 'Sorry, but we don’t know.' The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed.”
  • Source: Freeman Dyson, Frederick S. Pardee Distinguished Lecture (Oct 2005), Boston University. Collected in 'Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society', A Many-Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe (2007), 43-44.

Albert_Einstein

Magnificent Applied Science

“Why does this magnificent applied science which saves work and makes life easier bring us so little happiness? The simple answer runs: Because we have not yet learned to make sensible use of it. In war it serves that we may poison and mutilate each other. In peace it has made our lives hurried and uncertain. Instead of freeing us in great measure from spiritually exhausting labor, it has made men into slaves of machinery, who for the most part complete their monotonous long day's work with disgust and must continually tremble for their poor rations... It is not enough that you should understand about applied science in order that your work may increase man's blessings. Concern for the man himself and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavours; concern for the great unsolved problems of the organization of labor and the distribution of goods in order that the creations of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.”
  • Source: Albert Einstein [Speaker];
    • 1950-02-16 [Speech/Date]; California Institute of Technology [Location]; CalTech students [Audience];
    • 1950-02-17 [Reporting/Article/Date]; “Einstein Sees Lack in Applying Science” [Title]; Anonymous [Article/Author]; New York Times [Reporting/Newspaper]; 8 [Page];

Robert_Heinlein

Monkey Tree

“Yes, maybe it’s just one colossal big joke with no point to it... But... whatever the answers are, here’s one monkey that’s going to keep on climbing, and looking around him to see what he can see, as long as the tree holds out.”.
  • Source: Written by Robert A. Heinlein in the book “Methuselah’s Children” published in 1941 by Gnome Press, Hicksville, New York. Page 188. Character: Lazarus Long.

Joseph_Heller

Act Boastfully

“‘You know, that might be the answer — to act boastfully about something we ought to be ashamed of. That’s a trick that never seems to fail.’”
  • Source: Heller, Joseph. 'Catch-22: 50th Anniversary Edition'. Chapter 13 'Major... De Coverley', page 160. Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

Douglas_Hofstadter

Limits of Deduction

“In many real-life situations, deductive reasoning is inappropriate, not because it would give wrong answers, but because there are too many correct but irrelevant statements which can be made, there are just too many things to take into account simultaneously for reasoning alone to be sufficient.”
  • Source: Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1979). Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid. Written by Douglas R. Hofstadter. Basic Books, New York, NY. ISBN 13: 978-046502656-2. ISBN 10: 046502656-7. Chapter 17. Page 560.

Sabine_Hossenfelder

Answers and Explanations

“During more than a decade in public outreach, I noticed that physicists are really good at answering questions, but really bad at explaining why anyone should care about their answers.”
  • Source: Hossenfelder, Sabine. Existential Physics: A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions (p. xiii). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Steve_Jobs

Recruiting

“Recruiting is hard. It's just finding the needles in the haystack. You can't know enough in a one-hour interview. So, in the end, it's ultimately based on your gut. How do I feel about this person? What are they like when they're challenged? I ask everybody that: 'Why are you here?' The answers themselves are not what you're looking for. It's the meta-data.”
  • Source: Steve Jobs in Motivating Thoughts of Steve Jobs (ed. Prabhat Prakashan) - ISBN: 9789351869191.

Daniel_Kahneman

Intuitive Heuristics

“This is the essence of intuitive heuristics: when faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.”

Alister_McGrath

Why is the Kettle Boiling?

“The distinguished geologist Frank Rhodes made this point back in 1965, using the analogy of a boiling kettle. So why is the kettle boiling? Rhodes notes that two types of explanation might be given. At the scientific level, energy is being supplied, which raises the temperature of the water to its boiling point. Yet another answer can be given. 'The kettle is boiling because I put it on to make a cup of tea.' Rhodes makes a point which some of you may find predictable, but is none the less important. Here is what he says: 'Now these are different answers. But both are true, both are complementary and not competitive. One answer is appropriate within a particular frame of reference, the other within another frame of reference. There is a sense in which each is incomplete without the other.”
  • Note: Frank Rhodes gave credit for the kettle analogy to Dr. Douglas Spanner.

Steven_Pinker

Computational Mind Probabilistic

“The computational theory thus embraces an alternative kind of computer with many elements that are active to a degree corresponding to the probability that some statement is true or false, and in which the activity levels change smoothly to register new and roughly accurate probabilities. (As we shall see, that may be the way the brain works.) The key idea is that the answer to the question 'What makes a system smart?' is not the kind of stuff it is made of or the kind of energy flowing through it, but what the parts of the machine stand for and how the patterns of changes inside it are designed to mirror truth-preserving relationships (including probabilistic and fuzzy truths).”
  • Source: Steven Pinker (1997). How the Mind Works. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-06973-0; eISBN 978-0-393-06973-0. Chapter 2 Section: The search for Intelligent Life in the Universe.

Hans_Reichenbach

Picture of Scientific Method

“The picture of scientific method drafted by modern philosophy is very different from traditional conceptions. Gone is the ideal of a universe whose course follows strict rules, a predetermined cosmos that unwinds itself like an unwinding clock. Gone is the ideal of the scientist who knows the absolute truth. The happenings of nature are like rolling dice rather than like revolving stars; they are controlled by probability laws, not by causality, and the scientist resembles a gambler more than a prophet. He can tell you only his best posits — he never knows beforehand whether they will come true. He is a better gambler, though, than the man at the green table, because his statistical methods are superior. And his goal is staked higher — the goal of foretelling the rolling dice of the cosmos. If he is asked why he follows his methods, with what title he makes his predictions, he cannot answer that he has an irrefutable knowledge of the future; he can only lay his best bets. But he can prove that they are best bets, that making them is the best he can do — and if a man does his best, what else can you ask of him?”
  • Source: Hans Reichenbach, The Rise of Scientific Philosophy (1951, 1973), 248-9. Collected in James Louis Jarrett and Sterling M. McMurrin (eds.), Contemporary Philosophy: A Book of Readings (1954), 376.

Frank_H_T_Rhodes

Kettle Boiling

“It is not a question of choosing one and thereby rejecting the other; both are necessary in order to do justice to the totality... This is perhaps simply shown by Dr Douglas Spanner's example of the boiling kettle. Why, I may ask, is the kettle boiling? There are two kinds of answer that can be given. One is, it is boiling because energy is being supplied to it in the form of heat and the maximum vapour pressure of the water is now equal to the atmospheric pressure. The other kind of answer which may be given is that the kettle is boiling because I put it on to make a cup of tea. Now these are different answers, the first in terms of immediate causes and the second in terms of ultimate cause. But both are true, both are complementary and not competitive. One answer is appropriate within a particular frame of reference, the other within another frame of reference. There is a sense in which each is incomplete without the other.”
  • Source: Frank H. T. Rhodes in the essay “Christianity in a Mechanistic Universe”, included in the book “Christianity in a Mechanistic Universe and Other Essays” edited by Donald M. MacKay, published by Inter-Varsity Press, Chicago, Illinois, in 1965.

Rittel_and_Webber

No Correct nor Optimal

“In a pluralistic society there is nothing like the undisputable public good, there is no objective definition of equity, policies that respond to social problems cannot be meaningfully correct or false, and it makes no sense to talk about 'optimal solutions' to social problems unless severe qualifications are imposed first. Even worse, there are no 'solutions' in the sense of definitive and objective answers.”

John_Steinbeck

All Information Not In

“It is not enough to say that we cannot know or judge because all the information is not in. The process of gathering knowledge does not lead to knowing. A child's world spreads only a little beyond his understanding while that of a great scientist thrusts outward immeasurably. An answer is invariably the parent of a great family of new questions. So we draw worlds and fit them like tracings against the world about us, and crumple them when we find they do not fit and draw new ones.”
  • Source: John Steinbeck, In John Steinbeck and Edward Flanders Ricketts, Sea of Cortez: a Leisurely Journal of Travel and Research (1941), 165-66.

John_Tukey

Right Question

“Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made precise.”
  • Source: John Tukey. The future of data analysis. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33 (1), (1962), page 13.

Desire for an Answer

“The combination of some data and an aching desire for an answer does not ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted from a given body of data.”

  • Source: John Tukey. A paper entitled Sunset Salvo. The American Statistician, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Feb., 1986), pp. 72-76. DOI: 10.2307/2683137.

Gerald_Weinberg

Truth and Falsehood

“It's not a question of ‘truth’ or ‘falsehood’ ... but of what questions you want answered.“
  • Source: Weinberg, Gerald (2011-06-03). Passive Regulation: General Systems Design Principles (General Systems Thinking) (Kindle Locations 1751-1752). Weinberg & Weinberg. Kindle Edition.

John_Archibald_Wheeler

It And Bit

“Every it - every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself - derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely - even if in some contexts indirectly - from the ... answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits.”
  • Source: John Archibald Wheeler from a paper entitled ‘Information, physics, quantum: The search for links’, included in Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Tokyo, Japan. 1989.

Stephen_Wolfram

Quantum Computing

“The basic idea of quantum computing... is to do different computations in parallel along different possible threads of history. But the key issue is then how to corral those threads of history together to figure out a definite answer for the computation... The preliminary indication is that at least at a formal level, quantum computers aren’t going to come out ahead.”