Performance benchmarks use understood principles in computer science. CPU clocks, memory usage, and I/O are all quantifiable. The problem is , who tuned it, is it a real world context etc.
Which in no way contradicts what I said or why.
You brought up the language preference with no context. I brought up manipulation in benchmarking.
No, you're the one who brought them up, I just continued to use them:
Post 162, you wrote: "What's faster PHP or Java? Which web server Apache or IIS? Object oriented or structered and on an on."
Post 164, I wrote: "Choosing between languages is like choosing between car manufacturers; the choice is a matter of personal taste and when/where you'll use the car, not a matter of science."
From the above, I'd say it's
extremely clear that I only used language as an example and a continuation of what you brought up.
Every thing you do seems arbitrarily choosen to attempt to refute me. You choose that context when I can arbitrarily choose between ruby and assembler. Shall we do some studies in ergonomics for developing an application for a PC address book? I think we can prove scientifically that assembler is the wrong choice based upon metrics such as cost, ergonomics, time etc. But I did not bring up preferences I brought up metrics.
You're arguing against a strawman and you're inventing arguments and situations. My point, as previously stated, was to point out that the issues you originally presented as science aren't. Nothing more, nothing less. Your continuous misrepresentation of my argument has led to this lengthy duel of posts.
I can cite a priori by stating it. It is presupposed.
"A
citation or
bibliographic citation is a reference to a
book,
article,
web page, or other published item with sufficient details to identify the item uniquely." (Wikipedia). You didn't provide any information regarding your source, therefore you did not properly cite it. But again, this is beside the point; it has nothing to do with why I responded to you in the first place, so just drop it already.
You failed in stating your point.
I thought it was perfectly clear from the beginning. It is rather rare that I am so completely misunderstood, and when it happens it usually turns out to be intentional. Either way, now you know my point, so adress that instead of all these side issues and straw men.
Show me where I stated using and configuring software.
Certainly. Post 162: "Computer science is the best test bed for human objectivity. It has been completly invented by us. There is no metaphysical realm the foundation is the bit. If humans cannot have objectivity here then nowhere else. What's faster PHP or Java? Which web server Apache or IIS? Object oriented or structered and on an on. There is politics and bias in even this."
What you describe above is the typical kind of decisions that are made during the inital stages of product development; deciding on which language to use, which programming paradigm, what software tools etc. In other words, the useage (and by implication, configuration) of software. None of this is science.
Now will you go on record here and state that bench marking computer algorithms is not computer science?
Absolutely not, because I have never made such a claim. In fact, I specifically stated that algorithm complexity analysis is a part of science in post 164. Perhaps you would do well to actually read my posts and respond to what I am saying instead of what you want me to say.
Also it would be nice if someone could for once stick to a context of subject. First when I say scientists it becomes science and I am attacked . Then I am breated, unjustly, for poining out some sciences do not lend themselves to scientific methods due to the inability to isolate and/or observe and it leaves room for quacks. Then I am told I trust scientists when riding a bus while you tell me thaat it is not related to science to use technology. Why don't you argue with the one who told me I am trusting scientists when using technology?
Because he did not make an erroneous point. When you are using technology, your reliance on scientists is very remote. Sure, you rely on the principles of primary research to be sound because if they weren't, the technology wouldn't work. But that doesn't mean that using (or even designing) technology is actually science - it only means that science is a necessary first step for technology to be developed. Science sets the limits for what can be done, technology (and the use thereof) explores what can be done within those limits through the use of design, economics and whatnot.
Furthermore, you say above that some sciences do not lend to the scientific methods - well, that's exactly why they
aren't science. Almost nothing in the IT industry is actually science; most of the actual research is done at universities and a few big corporations.
Lastly, it is interesting how vehemently many have argued against me involving bias while assuming I was a Creationist or assuming I opposed science in favor of the Bible when I did no such thing here. When one compares secular scientists and all
scientists would not one without bias make another conclusion? Am I not essentially including Creation scientists in addition to this? Then we have the interesting dillema of Creation scientists but Bias , politics , poor logic, manipulation of context, non sequiturs have been on display here.
This seems to have nothing to do with me. I attempted to make a very straightforward point and will not be accused of context manipulation and non sequiteurs when it is you have been setting up strawmen to knock down.
buy it hook, line, and sinker!
. Its get worse and worse. Evolution is not science then. Do you have any clue at all that the field of psychology uses scientific methods or economics for that matter? I will ask for a refund of my tuition then. Truly stunning.
