• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Reply to thread

Thank you guys for this very interesting thread.


Personally, I too think that "stand-alone" replication in itself doesn't have much value. It can, however, be very significant when put into context.


Example: the sudden disappearance of my stapler could be easily replicated by having a colleague remove a second stapler from my desk while I'm distracted. Not only it produces the same result, it is a very "cheap" explanation in terms of assumptions because it fits with a frequent and well understood office "phenomenon" ;)

I'd be in a pretty weak position if I wanted to prove that the disappearance of my original stapler was the result of an alien abduction. That would bring in a lot of very expensive (in terms of required proof) assumptions: the existence of aliens, invisible alien presence on Earth, aliens developing a morbid interest in my stapler, just to name a few.


OTOH it is a clear fallacy to assume that if an unknown process x has produced c and a known process p also produces c then x must surely be p.

I once had a Modula-2 compiler for the Amiga, it came with a demo program which could produce some pretty convincing (to my untrained eye, at least) reproduction of Piet Mondrian's famous compositions. Though interesting, it wouldn't have bought me a lot in the way of proving that Piet Mondrian was a Modula-2 program ;)


Back
Top