you have a point having thought about it. But... Isn't that how a lot of sciences progress?
-
-
Replying to @mysticstatistic @o_guest
seems this was resolved but to specify it's a black box b/c it has to be reverse engineered to understand it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @synapticlee @mysticstatistic
I'm actually really uncomfortable w phrase "reverse engineering" to mean "do science", but otherwise, yes.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @mysticstatistic
hmm fair enough but I think rev eng may be sufficient-but-not-necessary for hypothesis testing
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @synapticlee
'
@synapticlee@mysticstatistic all I object to (as others have before me) is defining science as the reverse process to engineering.2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @mysticstatistic
ah in that case, I definitely agree :p no, I think 'reverse engineering' is just one part of science!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @synapticlee @mysticstatistic
I think you are defining reverse engineering a lot more broadly than I do. I just don't see it as part of sci.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
in my opinion it's part of design technology and engineering.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't think cognitive science for example is or contains reverse engineering the mind.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I suppose a good q might be what do you think it's a prime/typical/famous example of reverse engineering?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
we can totally disagree on this — no pressure to reply, but I think it's useful/interesting to think through.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.