Tops Law

A generalization of LaynesLaw. Outside of machine performance (speed, RAM & disk size, etc.), every software debate ultimately ends up being about WetWare (which is more art than science at this point in history).

I feel it is more general than LaynesLaw because language problems are a just a manifestation of TopsLaw. Language is the interface contact surface where the friction of conceptual (mental) mismatches manifests itself. We cannot download our head models directly between each other, but must translate them into text or diagrams (language and symbols) to communicate as human beings (using the Internet). This "on paper" projection of our head model is the only thing we can "point to" to argue over, not the actual (original) head model(s).

(Even inside of machine performance issues, conflicts over goals and trade-offs can come down to WetWare.)

--top

By "WetWare", don't you really mean "personal preference"?

No, it's a combination of mental factors, as described in WetWare. Personal preference is generally much easier to measure than many factors, I would note. Ideally we'd be able to measure productivity under the different variations, but that kind of research for realistic scenarios is difficult to come by such that we are often stuck with less than perfect proxy metrics, such as personal preference.

Perhaps, but almost every sustained argument that isn't an invocation of LaynesLaw does come down to personal preference, which is itself undoubtedly a result of experience, biology, and cerebral wiring.

Example? I will agree that personal preference is often an (imperfect) short-cut stand-in for rigorous studies on human productivity, which nobody seems to want to pay for.

Counter argument: KolmogorovQuotient: not about the machine, but who's purpose is to quantify and dissolve the LanguageWars.

I suppose it's also possible for there to be LaynesLaw-like disagreements over the accuracy or utility of diagrams, but I've rarely seen that. Usually it's accepted that diagrams are rough approximations for supplemental purposes and not meant to be rigorous models. --top

I think, in contrast, that what you're noticing is that debates boil-down to a TwoPlayerStandOff. However, one is actually right, yet unable to prove it (on the internet especially), and the other is simply a very good argumentation machine. Don't give up on real Truth, and devolve to Subjectivism or PostModernism -- they are dead-ends which lead nowhere. --MarkJanssen

If that were true, why can't "Mr. Right" find a way to present solid textual evidence? Why are the standards of science and logic failing? If we want ComputerScience to actually be science, then such issues should be fixed. If it's beyond science somehow, then we should find a better name, such as Study of Virtual Digital Realities or the like.

{It's notable which side you've taken, given that Mark didn't say who was "Mr. Right" or "a very good argumentation machine".}
- Excellent point. Thank you! He must be one of TheKooks.
- {Who is "he"? Me or Top? :-)} [Mr. Italics --Mark]
- How about we leave it unspecified to avoid risking a finger-pointing ThreadMess here.

You simply don't understand the relationship of Logic to actual Truth, and more specifically GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem. "Textual evidence" concerning "science and logic" can always be made to fail, because it is not WHAT IS (i.e. it, by the nature of language, encodes a level of indirection, see Wittgenstein). The gain is simply not there relative to the investment. Skeptics spend all their energy cutting up something, and while Truth assures that it will always be able to be put back together (even if in a much bigger, enclosing system), Goedel has already guaranteed that there will always be another way to bring it all down. So the final EndGame is simply "Why bother?".... Eh?

What's an example from another discipline or earlier era of science where the answer is now clear?

The point is that the time where "the answer is now clear" is a mere convenience -- a point where there is sufficient support to allow/make it Truth. At least for a moment, or an era. In other words: Don't tear down another's castle, just to make sand. Either offer something better, or leave it alone. Why poke holes at it or even try?

Looks like sand versus sand to me. No philosopher or scientist gets a Get-Of-Scrutiny-For-Free card.

CategoryDefinition, CategorySubjectivityAndRelativism, CategoryPsychology, CategoryEvidence,