On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, by "exceedingly costly" I wasn't referring to the scientific >> research program. I was referring to the development program. You >> _really_ don't want to do engineering in the absence of validated theory. >> > > Why not? > Simply because the business risk is more economically reduced by science than by development. > Most technology was developed without a theory. > Most technology was developed before the scientific method and the Guttenberg Press. > Most of the machines and structures you see around you were developed in > ancient times when they had no idea what elements are, never mind atoms. I > mean things like knives, concrete, steel, wooden houses, water pipes . . . > People can use models, intuitive methods or Edisonian methods in place of a > theory. It is more art than science, but art will take you a long way. > You deleted my rational placement of Edisonian methodology.
