Re: The term "theory" as in "database theory"
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:30:01 GMT
Message-ID: <ttIuh.5761$1x.99757_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
JOG wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:05 pm, "dawn" <dawnwolth..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>[snip] >> >>>>4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or >>>>methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. >> >>>Now we have something, a description of a human pursuit. This makes as much >>>sense as #5 below. >> >>>>5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the >>>>method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
>
>
> There you go. A combination of 4 & 5 seems like a definition that might
> apply best to cdt. Look, its absolutely fine to take an MV view and
> investigate it - others have discussed it on here without producing
> mass offence, because they approach the subject theoretically and
> scientifically because they will back up their analyses with rules and
> principles, follow them through logically and mathematically, be
> concise, address the disadvantages they generate, etc. T
>
> hey have no need to fear an uproar, because they keep their arguments
> free of business politics and crusades! They might distinguish
> implementations with underlying model clearly. But and most
> importantly, they steer clear of hand way appeals to woefully
> unreliable /anecdotal evidence/ (which is like committing discursive
> suicide without a plethora of caveats attached to it).
>
> After all if anecdotal evidence was of any merit we'd all believe in
> Ghosts, Telepathy, Martians, Elvis being alive, or that I can look at
> greasy sodden tea leaves to see if England are ever going to win a
> cricket match again.
>
>
>>>Sounds the same as 4, generally speaking.OK, that was my impression too. So, one person might have 2VL in their >> >>theory and another might have 3VL, right? How would one judge whether >>one was better than another? I would think that would be by applying >>each system of rules along with some means of measuring which system >>produces better results in various areas. Judging database theories >>would be much like judging software products - what features does it >>provide, what quality requirements does it meet, etc. Does that make >>sense?
>
>
> Not to me. Database theory is grounded in the nature of information in
> a dynamic world, and how it can be communicated and manipulated, and
> its integrity maintained. Logicians and Linguists have spent centuries
> addressing these issues, scientifically and diligently. We are far from
> getting to the truth of what information is, and how it best be
> handled, but we have progressed and it is through this sort of applied
> epistimology that advances will continue to be made. Progress does not
> occur through saying "my mate used this graph thing to organize his wii
> game collection and it was leet. I don't understand it doesn't 0wnage
> the world. It must be because all the man has have been lying to us all
> these years."
>
>
>>>>6. contemplation or speculation. >>>>7. guess or conjecture. >>> >>>"Ha! We'll get lots of wise-cracks on these two!Sometimes my statements align with 4 & 5, in which case they could be >> >>judged by what features are present and which are not. Sometimes I get >>responses or give statements that are more in the 6 or 7 category. But >>if someone guesses that that relational theory is better for xyz in the >>long term and I guess it is not, then a comparison of features (which >>we might do to judge database theory as mentioned above) is not >>sufficient because we can disagree on which approach is more >>feature-rich or meets the requirements best.
What an idiot! Dawn is the only one guessing. She has no choice because she is too stupid to comprehend simple logic.
What a fucking liar! This idiot wouldn't recognize empirical evidence if it bit her on the ass. Anecdotes and feelings might pass muster while making sandwiches for the church picnic, but they do not constitute empirical anything.
> Having a 'theory' is not enough. One has to back it up, or develop it
> with a bit of scientific rigour for it to become worth people's time
> and consideration (and not embarrassing appeals to anecdotal evidence).
> Sadly empirical evidence is almost impossible to obtain in the field
> (as it is such areas as the Biological sciences, and especially in my
> old field Economics), so people have to appeal to other merits.
Oh, there is plenty of empirical evidence around. For example, that whole red and blue car thing from a few years ago provided overwhelming evidence that Dawn and the MV crowd she comes from are universally too stupid to understand their own shortcomings.
>>So, I'm confused on how others are thinking one judges whether they >>have a good "database theory."
If you are going to engage the self-aggrandizing ignorants, please call them out on their most offensive bullshit. Allowing the snake oil salesmen to play word games with colloquial misuses of words in fields with precise definitions only helps them dupe the ignorant.
Does theory have multiple meanings that apply in c.d.t? Certainly. However, databases are a technical discipline. Colloquial uses that confuse 'theory' with 'hypothesis' or 'conjecture' have no relevance here.
[Dawn's confused horseshit snipped]
> No, your "bang for buck" argument is spurious and always makes me
> cringe somewhat.
But is exactly the sort of jingoism that sells, which is why the snakeoil salesmen use it.
[snip]
> I hope (perhaps foolishly) that you yet might heed some of these things
> and who knows, it may even generate real discourse!
I suggest your hope ignores objective reality. Wishing the world were different won't make it so. Just accept the fact she is too stupid to contribute anything worthwhile.
[snip]
>>I also am not sure whether sometimes when a person writes "theory" they >>are referring only to the mathematics portion of the rules. For >>example, are "produce a nightly backup to disk" and "have a real-time >>operational database that is a duplicate of the OLTP database" possible >>statements in a "database theory" or not? Why or why not?
Requirements and objectives are requirements and objectives. The general terms for the features to achieve the above are snapshot and mirror. While, mirror has no real meaning at the logical level of discourse, one can devise and express theorems and proofs related to physical implementation of same. Received on Sat Jan 27 2007 - 14:30:01 CET