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.'' --------- See also: DiscussingWithoutConcreteRepresentations, LaynesLaw --------- CategoryDefinition, CategorySubjectivityAndRelativism, CategoryPsychology, CategoryEvidence,