Re: What is analysis?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:30:38 -0400
Message-ID: <47542f34$0$5284$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net>

David Cressey wrote:

> "Jon Heggland" <jon.heggland_at_ntnu.no> wrote in message
> news:fj14mv$n05$1_at_orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
>

>>Quoth David Cressey:
>>
>>>"Jon Heggland" <jon.heggland_at_idi.ntnu.no> wrote in message
>>>news:fj0fhm$ad9$1_at_orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>
>>>In the above terms,  the opposite of analysis is synthesis.  I like to

>
> think
>

>>>of the overall life cycle as consisting of "problem analysis and system
>>>synthesis".
>>
>>Yes, I was thinking about analysis and synthesis when I spoke my piece.
>>
>>
>>>>No. Nothing that covered analysis /thoroughly/, at least, and certainly
>>>>not /formally/. I've learned a few diagramming notations in my time,

>
> but
>

>>>>I've never had analysis presented as a science as opposed to an art or
>>>>craft.
>>>
>>>Maybe it is an art or craft rather than a science.  Maybe presenting as

>
> if
>

>>>it were a science is missing the point.
>>
>>I was half hoping that you might know of any science in the area, since
>>you used the term "formal analysis" earlier, and seemed surprised that
>>there is confusion about what analysis is. Oh well. :)

>
> I don't think of "formal" as a code word for "scientific". In fact, I
> don't even think "engineering" is code for "scientific". Science is about
> discovery. Engineering is about invention. There is a lot of overlap in the
> language, the tools, the method and the mode of thought. But they aren't
> interchageable.

Pure science is about discovery. Engineering is about applying science whether to invention, re-invention, patent subversion, measurement, design etc.

[snip] Received on Mon Dec 03 2007 - 10:30:38 CST