3 ms·

But science and the acquisition of knowledge is all about pushing deeper into the implementation. We can't look at something like gravity and say, 'yep, that se

But science and the acquisition of knowledge is all about pushing deeper into the implementation. We can't look at something like gravity and say, 'yep, that seems to work fine, adheres to its interface, we don't really need to know how it works, just that it passes its tests (apples fall, helium balloons float above oxygen, etc)'. We can't leave it there, because we have to know the implementation. We'll never improve if we don't. And we still haven't nailed it, but that's no excuse to stop. It's like a beginning programmer looking at a hash table object and hitting 'view source'. What kind of programmer would he be if he didn't want to see behind the curtain at least once? How could he be expected to excel?

wcarey 16y ago
I'd disagree that science is about "pushing deeper into the implementation". It turns out that Newtonian gravity doesn't adhere to the interface that Newton proposed (and Newton knew that it didn't; Mercury!). As a result, Einstein developed a mew interface, which supplanted Newton's interface. Neither of them speaks to, or even claims to speak to[1], something like implementation. To be sure, we do refine out conceptions of that interface, and I'd agree with you that that's a very valuable project. Your example about a programmer peeking into the hash table is germane, because the hash table's "implementation" is, itself, composed of interfaces. Following your argument, how could a programmer be expected to excel if he didn't understand those interfaces? And it's turtles all the way down until you hit Feynman diagrams. That's doesn't seem to be how people actually work. At some point, a layer of abstraction is leak-proof enough to satisfy curiosity and allow meaningful work to be built upon it. Where that point is will vary from person to person. Much as some people are content to work with a vague notion of Newtonian gravity, some Christians are content to live with a fairly abstract and vague understanding of theology. There's nothing wrong with that. We call people who wrestle with abstractions surrounding the natural world scientists, and we call people who wrestle with abstractions surrounding God and faith theologians. [1] Well, Newton explicitly disclaims this. I haven't read Einstein recently enough to remember whether he disclaims it explicitly, but I think he certainly is no Aristotelian.

wcarey 16y ago

I'd disagree that science is about "pushing deeper into the implementation". It turns out that Newtonian gravity doesn't adhere to the interface that Newton proposed (and Newton knew that it didn't; Mercury!). As a result, Einstein developed a mew interface, which supplanted Newton's interface. Neither of them speaks to, or even claims to speak to[1], something like implementation. To be sure, we do refine out conceptions of that interface, and I'd agree with you that that's a very valuable project. Your example about a programmer peeking into the hash table is germane, because the hash table's "implementation" is, itself, composed of interfaces. Following your argument, how could a programmer be expected to excel if he didn't understand those interfaces? And it's turtles all the way down until you hit Feynman diagrams. That's doesn't seem to be how people actually work. At some point, a layer of abstraction is leak-proof enough to satisfy curiosity and allow meaningful work to be built upon it. Where that point is will vary from person to person. Much as some people are content to work with a vague notion of Newtonian gravity, some Christians are content to live with a fairly abstract and vague understanding of theology. There's nothing wrong with that. We call people who wrestle with abstractions surrounding the natural world scientists, and we call people who wrestle with abstractions surrounding God and faith theologians. [1] Well, Newton explicitly disclaims this. I haven't read Einstein recently enough to remember whether he disclaims it explicitly, but I think he certainly is no Aristotelian.