What is a software engineer?

[David Mark]

What is a software engineer? I talked to a group recently and
presented this pattern:

var myEval = function(str) {
return window.eval ? window.eval(str) : eval(str);
};

I know a lot of programmers of various degrees of proficiency read
this group. Can anyone not see the problem with this in the second it
takes to read it?

Even if you don't know the language, but know that the code must be
executed in various environments (which may or may not feature an eval
method on host objects), logic dictates that this is about as bad as a
design can get (designed to give varying cross-browser results).

Would you hang your hat on this? I've been asked by these engineers
to "prove" that this is a bad idea (I say the proof is right there in
the code). They say they've never _seen_ it fail. For this one, I
don't know what that means (it's obviously designed to fail). So when
did programming becomes a process of gathering empirical evidence, as
opposed to understanding logic? Seems like browser scripting would be
the worst discipline for such a change in strategy.

How about this one:-

if (typeof xyz == 'array' || xyz instanceof Array) {
...
}

First test is _never_ true in an ECMAScript implementation. Same
engineers want "proof" of that too. (proof that something does not
exist!) Second test is known to be inconsistent due to frames. Is it
really possible to program JS and not know these things?

By the same token, what if you had wrappers for get/set/hasAttribute
that made little or no attempt to deal with the broken MSHTML
implementations (e.g. jQuery), built a CSS selector engine on top of
them and found out years later that you made a *huge* mistake. You
can see all of the support tickets that have come up over the years
because of this mistake. Would you leave all of the bugs in place for
the sake of some perverse form of backwards compatibility?

These are all lynchpin functions. It boggles my mind that people
could rely on (and waste time maintaining) code like this for
absolutely everything, with the only understanding being that it "just
works" (despite the fact that it is patched constantly, especially
when new browsers emerge).. I guess thousands of similarly challenged
engineers can't be wrong.

 

[Eric Bednarz]

What is a software engineer?

In the Netherlands at the time of writing, anything from a computer
science graduate to a HTML/CSS code monkey who can copy and paste
[insert javascript[insert naming controversy here] library name
here]-code.

 

[David Mark]

What is a software engineer?

In the Netherlands at the time of writing, anything from a computer
science graduate to a HTML/CSS code monkey who can copy and paste
[insert javascript[insert naming controversy here] library name
here]-code.

And at the time of this writing, a "proof" seems to be any bullshit
pattern you can observe and report with your installed browser(s).
It's like, if you saw it on the monitor, it must be true. Or more
like if _anyone_ ever reported it.

It is my contention that browsers (especially modern browsers) are not
mysterious, illogical creatures to be observed. Neither are the
people that make them.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

What is a software engineer? I talked to a group recently and
presented this pattern:

var myEval = function(str) {
return window.eval ? window.eval(str) : eval(str);
};

I know a lot of programmers of various degrees of proficiency read
this group. Can anyone not see the problem with this in the second it
takes to read it?

Even if you don't know the language, but know that the code must be
executed in various environments (which may or may not feature an eval
method on host objects), logic dictates that this is about as bad as a
design can get (designed to give varying cross-browser results).

Would you hang your hat on this? I've been asked by these engineers
to "prove" that this is a bad idea (I say the proof is right there in
the code). They say they've never _seen_ it fail. For this one, I
don't know what that means (it's obviously designed to fail). So when
did programming becomes a process of gathering empirical evidence, as
opposed to understanding logic? Seems like browser scripting would be
the worst discipline for such a change in strategy.

Without trying to justify their response, when analyzing this problem I
think it is important to take a step back and understand that very much
depends on one's position in the learning curve and one's level of
experience in the field. It is also a matter of the methodology chosen to
employ in order to learn (a new programming language), which is strongly
related to the two former aspects.

If you do not know the difference between native objects and host objects
(perhaps because you chose to learn by example only), and the possible
difference in behavior that this involves, you do not get the idea of using
an alternative to a type-converting test. And if you have never seen the
type-converting test to fail, but you have seen some environments to expose
an eval() method (and never a non-function `eval' property) on Window
instances and others to have no such property, but an eval() method
elsewhere instead, you can get the idea that this test was a good idea.

Of course, that eval() is primarily a method of the ECMAScript Global Object
and that therefore the wrapper is either unnecessary or error-prone, can
already be ascertained by reading the first page of the Netscape/Mozilla.org
Core JavaScript Reference¹, so the person's position in the learning curve
and level of experience must be assessed as being rather early and low.

As Richard stated more aptly before, the main problem with people learning
JS/ES is extreme, objectively unjustified overconfidence; the languages are
so dynamic in nature and the results of their application in a browser
immediately visible that they appear too easy to learn from so-called
tutorials (written by usually equally inexperienced individuals) instead of
the -- to some apparently more painful -- process of RTFM. (This goes
especially with the ignorance of the difference between ECMAScript,
JavaScript, JScript, and the many other ECMAScript implementations and their
versions, which is seldom, if ever, even mentioned in tutorials and books
intended for learners.)

Quick successes with superficial tests in a handful of browsers, inexact or
bogus (script-kiddie) terminology employed by people at approximately the
same position of the learning curve, suggest to the uninitiated that this
simple appearance would be true, that the complexity the other people are
talking about does not exist at all, and that those are just blowing up
their egos. So these people tend to become victim to the fallacy of
shifting the burden of proof, asking "show me where it fails", falsely
assuming that failure would be the exception without recognizing for an
instant (until told, but sometimes not even after that) that the approach is
destined to fail (as Specifications are written to adhere to them) and that
its working is the (fortunate?) exception instead.

How about this one:-

if (typeof xyz == 'array' || xyz instanceof Array) {
...
}

First test is _never_ true in an ECMAScript implementation.

That is not quite correct. The first test could result in `true' in a
conforming implementation of ECMAScript if `xyz' referred to a host object.
But I doubt the person writing it was aware of that or even intended to meet
the case.

Same engineers want "proof" of that too. (proof that something does not
exist!) Second test is known to be inconsistent due to frames. Is it
really possible to program JS and not know these things?

As for the frames argument, if you never used this code cross-window or
cross-frame, you probably would never notice the difference. That is what
happened to me, and I am not too proud to admit that it took me reading
replies in this newsgroup a few months ago to see the problem, even though
my code uses the `constructor' property instead as I considered it more
compatible. And the library providing the testing function (but AFAIK not
using it for crucial functionality) existed in that form since approximately
*5 years* before that!

By the same token, what if you had wrappers for get/set/hasAttribute
that made little or no attempt to deal with the broken MSHTML
implementations (e.g. jQuery), built a CSS selector engine on top of
them and found out years later that you made a *huge* mistake. You
can see all of the support tickets that have come up over the years
because of this mistake. Would you leave all of the bugs in place for
the sake of some perverse form of backwards compatibility?

Probably not; at least I would try to implement a version that eases the
transition to a better approach.

However, if you are inexperienced enough it is too easy to attribute
problems newly discovered only in one or a few runtime environments to a bug
in those environments. The misconception so built is understandable, but
not acceptable, of course.


HTH

PointedEars
___________
¹ However, the current Reference says "JavaScript functions not associated
with any object" which is wrong, and "In the ECMAScript specification,
these functions are referred to as methods of the global object." which
is misleading with regard to the former sentence. Because in
Netscape and Mozilla.org JavaScript, among other implementations, too,
these functions are methods of the global object, and knowing that is a
requirement for writing a sufficiently reliable feature test for those
methods.

 

[David Mark]

Without trying to justify their response, when analyzing this problem I
think it is important to take a step back and understand that very much
depends on one's position in the learning curve and one's level of
experience in the field.  It is also a matter of the methodology chosento
employ in order to learn (a new programming language), which is strongly
related to the two former aspects.  

If you do not know the difference between native objects and host objects
(perhaps because you chose to learn by example only), and the possible
difference in behavior that this involves, you do not get the idea of using
an alternative to a type-converting test.  And if you have never seen the
type-converting test to fail, but you have seen some environments to expose
an eval() method (and never a non-function `eval' property) on Window
instances and others to have no such property, but an eval() method
elsewhere instead, you can get the idea that this test was a good idea.

Of course, that eval() is primarily a method of the ECMAScript Global Object
and that therefore the wrapper is either unnecessary or error-prone, can
already be ascertained by reading the first page of the Netscape/Mozilla.org
Core JavaScript Reference¹, so the person's position in the learning curve
and level of experience must be assessed as being rather early and low.

Yes, the (unjustified) thinking goes that calling eval as a method of
the Global object (or a host object) will set the - this - identifier
and scope accordingly. But the logic is broken in any event as - eval
- certainly won't do that. Unless the aim is for cross-browser chaos,
it's a one-liner in need of a do-over.

[...]

That is not quite correct.  The first test could result in `true' in a
conforming implementation of ECMAScript if `xyz' referred to a host object.  

Fair enough. Should point out that - for host objects - it could just
as easily be 'mickeymouse'.

But I doubt the person writing it was aware of that or even intended to meet
the case.

Definitely not. It's paired with instanceof Array and roughly the
same mistake I fixed (by proxy) in jQuery two years ago.

 

[David Mark]

On Nov 14, 5:12 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <[email protected]>
wrote:

[...]

Of course, that eval() is primarily a method of the ECMAScript Global Object
and that therefore the wrapper is either unnecessary or error-prone, can
already be ascertained by reading the first page of the Netscape/Mozilla.org
Core JavaScript Reference¹, so the person's position in the learning curve
and level of experience must be assessed as being rather early and low.

True, but beside the main point I was trying to illustrate with this
(bad) example. This is just as illogical a design:-

var GLOBAL = this;

var myEval = function(str) {
return GLOBAL.eval ? GLOBAL.eval(str) : eval(str);
};

....though a tiny bit closer to competent. I made my example doubly
bad. The point is that there is no way this could be counted on to
evaluate script with global scope. In short, by design, some
percentage of browsers will not be able to - for one - declare global
variables. As written, resolving - str - will be an adventure as well.

 

[Garrett Smith]

What is a software engineer? I talked to a group recently and
presented this pattern:

var myEval = function(str) {
return window.eval ? window.eval(str) : eval(str);
};

I know a lot of programmers of various degrees of proficiency read
this group. Can anyone not see the problem with this in the second it
takes to read it?

Even if you don't know the language, but know that the code must be
executed in various environments (which may or may not feature an eval
method on host objects), logic dictates that this is about as bad as a
design can get (designed to give varying cross-browser results).

Object.prototype.eval was removed from Spidermonkey in 2007, IIRC.

I believe that in the case where Object.prototype.eval is implemented
(nonstandard), the |this| value is Base object (window here).

I never relied Object.prototype.eval, so the quirks of that are not
something I attach much value to (worth forgetting).

IIRC jquery uses window["eval"] in the source code. looking...

hat rack:
| // Get the JavaScript object, if JSON is used.
| if ( type == "json" )
| data = window["eval"]("(" + data + ")");

Not sure why they chose that approach over:
data = eval("(" + data + ")");

That approach uses indirect eval. The calling context's scope is used,
so is just as unsafe in that regard. Only difference is older
implementations' thisArg is different.

It indirect eval, for reasons I'm failing to comprehend.

I believe I mentioned this very issue about a year or so ago on the
jquery newsgroup.

 

[David Mark]

What is a software engineer?  I talked to a group recently and
presented this pattern:

var myEval = function(str) {
    return window.eval ? window.eval(str) : eval(str);
};

I know a lot of programmers of various degrees of proficiency read
this group.  Can anyone not see the problem with this in the second it
takes to read it?

Even if you don't know the language, but know that the code must be
executed in various environments (which may or may not feature an eval
method on host objects), logic dictates that this is about as bad as a
design can get (designed to give varying cross-browser results).

Object.prototype.eval was removed from Spidermonkey in 2007, IIRC.

I believe that in the case where Object.prototype.eval is implemented
(nonstandard), the |this| value is Base object (window here).

I never relied Object.prototype.eval, so the quirks of that are not
something I attach much value to (worth forgetting).
Definitely.


IIRC jquery uses window["eval"] in the source code. looking...

hat rack:
| // Get the JavaScript object, if JSON is used.
| if ( type == "json" )
|   data = window["eval"]("(" + data + ")");

Not sure why they chose that approach over:
   data = eval("(" + data + ")");

Voodoo.

 

[David Mark]

<snip>

That "could result in 'true'" is very much a theoretical possibility; a
host object may result in any string when - typeof - is applied to it,
but it is extremely rare that they do result in anything that is not
already in the ECMAScript list, and the exception ('unknown' in IE when
testing ActiveX objects, methods and properties) is literally the only
one that I have ever encountered, or heard tell off.

That's be

Personally, I don't believe that there has ever been a browser
environment in which any object (host or otherwise) resulted in 'array'
when - typeof - was applied to it. I think that is formulation (and the
many similar - typeof - tests) is just another of those mystical
inactions that start out as someone's mistake and propagate precisely
because they are essentially harmless (the 'array' result never happens
and so the code guarded by it is either unconditionally executed or not
executed).

That is probably the measure of an 'engineer' in this context; an
engineer would want to identify and eliminate the mystical incantations
from what they were doing.

It seems some are unsure how to identify mystical decision decisions.
There is this "show me" attitude that seems to reduce programming to
observation. The programmer role is reduced to one who can observe
patterns, rather than one who can understand abstractions. And, as
mentioned, this is one bug that will never "show" its face (and is
actually just an ineffectual waste of space and a telltale sign of the
author's spot on the JS learning curve).

But this attitude becomes dangerous on more critical design
decisions. I've heard talk of a script loading mechanism that will
rely solely on the non-standard onreadystatechange and onload
properties of created SCRIPT elements. The plan is to inject SCRIPT
elements directly into the HTML element and then rely on the non-
standard events to fire and put everything in order. ISTM that
relying on observations of these two hacks working together in a
limited set of present environments is folly. Furthermore,
investigating its viability by searching for an environment that fails
is a waste of time (i.e. what does it prove if one can't be found?)
and a backwards approach to browser scripting. I think an engineer
would dismiss the fantasy scenario(s) out of hand and think about
better alternatives with at least some basis in present reality and/or
tradition in history.

Can you imagine if C++ - for example - were written like this? It
would actually be easier in some respects. Trying to script browsers
by feel seems like Mission Impossible by comparison (and perhaps
that's why so many involved with JS consider it impossible).

 

[David Mark]

That 'undefined' should have been 'unknown', but you probably figured
that out already.

Actually, I thought you meant document.all in FF quirks mode.

 

[David Mark]

Fair enough, that will do as your third example of a host object -
typeof - oddity that can be stated. (Which reminds me, there is (or was,
as it has been criticised) something in Safari that claims to be
'undefined' even though it can be shown to exist (be an object or
function). I don't recall the detail, but I think Garrett may be in a
position to say what it is (without looking it up in the ES 4/3.1
mailing list archives.))

The - item - method of DOM collections I think. So yeah, in reported
history, there are a handful of host object typeof anomalies and all
but one - unknown - are native type names. Not one "array" in the
bunch.

 

[David Mark]

On Nov 14, 11:36 pm, "Richard Cornford" <[email protected]>
wrote:

[...]

Yes, it is precisely that sort of thing that places arbitrary
constraints on the set of supported browsers without there being any
real need to be doing so.

And I think it goes without saying that such arbitrary constraints are
confining even on the desktop. But for scripts with mobile
aspirations (one of the reasons dynamic script loading is being
considered) it seems like the worst possible choice.

 

[Garrett Smith]

Fair enough, that will do as your third example of a host object -
typeof - oddity that can be stated. (Which reminds me, there is (or was,
as it has been criticised) something in Safari that claims to be
'undefined' even though it can be shown to exist (be an object or
function). I don't recall the detail, but I think Garrett may be in a
position to say what it is (without looking it up in the ES 4/3.1
mailing list archives.))

Was an SVG "filter" style property, as a string value:-

typeof el.style.filter

"undefined".

javascript:var s=document.body.style;alert([typeof s.filter,"filter"in s]);

elerts "undefined, true"

 

[David Mark]

Fair enough, that will do as your third example of a host object -
typeof - oddity that can be stated. (Which reminds me, there is (or was,
as it has been criticised) something in Safari that claims to be
'undefined' even though it can be shown to exist (be an object or
function). I don't recall the detail, but I think Garrett may be in a
position to say what it is (without looking it up in the ES 4/3.1
mailing list archives.))

Was an SVG "filter" style property, as a string value:-

typeof el.style.filter

"undefined".

javascript:var s=document.body.style;alert([typeof s.filter,"filter"in s]);

elerts "undefined, true"

Right. The collection item method is IE and "string". So to sum up,
typeof for native objects is specified and all known implementations
follow the specification in this regard (and would be broken as
designed otherwise). The allowed results do not include "array".
Host objects are allowed to return anything, but save for one case,
they return native type names (and the exception is not "array"
either). And it would be a dubious assumption that a host object
returning typeof "array" means that the object is an Array (certainly
document.all !== undefined in FF quirks mode).

It's not 100%, but proof enough for me that the code in question is at
best superfluous (for native objects) and could be harmful (for host
objects). As Richard has speculated (for some time), it is likely the
result of a misconception that has spread over the years (programming
by copying patterns can produce oddities like this). I've certainly
seen this particular example in a lot of scripts. I'll give it to
jQuery that they didn't demand "proof" for this one. Of course,
there's that pesky attribute "question". And now I see they actually
use window.eval. Whatever.

 

[Garrett Smith]

David Mark wrote:
On Nov 14, 11:55 pm, Richard Cornford wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
... After all, you can show them the environments where
objects result in 'undefined'...
That 'undefined' should have been 'unknown', but you probably
figured that out already.
Actually, I thought you meant document.all in FF quirks mode.
Fair enough, that will do as your third example of a host object -
typeof - oddity that can be stated. (Which reminds me, there is (or was,
as it has been criticised) something in Safari that claims to be
'undefined' even though it can be shown to exist (be an object or
function). I don't recall the detail, but I think Garrett may be in a
position to say what it is (without looking it up in the ES 4/3.1
mailing list archives.))

Was an SVG "filter" style property, as a string value:-

typeof el.style.filter

"undefined".

javascript:var s=document.body.style;alert([typeof s.filter,"filter"in s]);

elerts "undefined, true"

And:

javascript:var s=document.body.style;prompt('',[typeof s.filter, s]);

results:

undefined,[object CSSStyleDeclaration]

Right. The collection item method is IE and "string". So to sum up,
typeof for native objects is specified and all known implementations
follow the specification in this regard (and would be broken as
designed otherwise).

Ah, not completely.

We recently discussed callable regexp.

In Spidermonkey typeof /a/ results "object" (where it should, by
following the typeof table, result "function". This is because RegExp is
callable in Spidermonkey, using Function Call syntax as:

/a/("a");// results ["a"]

javascript: alert( /a/("a") )

elerts "a"

 

[David Mark]

Richard Cornford wrote:
David Mark wrote:
On Nov 14, 11:55 pm, Richard Cornford wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
... After all, you can show them the environments where
objects result in 'undefined'...
That 'undefined' should have been 'unknown', but you probably
figured that out already.
Actually, I thought you meant document.all in FF quirks mode.  
Fair enough, that will do as your third example of a host object -
typeof - oddity that can be stated. (Which reminds me, there is (or was,
as it has been criticised) something in Safari that claims to be
'undefined' even though it can be shown to exist (be an object or
function). I don't recall the detail, but I think Garrett may be in a
position to say what it is (without looking it up in the ES 4/3.1
mailing list archives.))
Was an SVG "filter" style property, as a string value:-
typeof el.style.filter
"undefined".
javascript:var s=document.body.style;alert([typeof s.filter,"filter"in s]);
elerts "undefined, true"

And:

javascript:var s=document.body.style;prompt('',[typeof s.filter, s]);

results:

undefined,[object CSSStyleDeclaration]

Right.  The collection item method is IE and "string".  So to sum up,
typeof for native objects is specified and all known implementations
follow the specification in this regard (and would be broken as
designed otherwise).  

Ah, not completely.

We recently discussed callable regexp.

In Spidermonkey typeof /a/ results "object" (where it should, by
following the typeof table, result "function". This is because RegExp is
callable in Spidermonkey, using Function Call syntax as:

/a/("a");// results ["a"]

   javascript: alert(  /a/("a") )

elerts "a"

Fair enough, but it is still within the specified range for native
types.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

<snip>

That "could result in 'true'" is very much a theoretical possibility;

A possibility nonetheless, which disproves the "never". Nothing more,
nothing less.

a host object may result in any string when - typeof - is applied to it,

That was my point.

but it is extremely rare that they do result in anything that is not
already in the ECMAScript list, and the exception ('unknown' in IE when
testing ActiveX objects, methods and properties) is literally the only
one that I have ever encountered, or heard tell off. [...]

You appear to think that I said it would be a likely case; I did not.


PointedEars

 

[RobG]

What is a software engineer?

To me, an engineer is a skilled technical professional who is able to
apply scientific knowledge to solve practical problems.

[...]

Would you hang your hat on this?  I've been asked by these engineers
to "prove" that this is a bad idea (I say the proof is right there in
the code).  They say they've never _seen_ it fail.

Empirical evidence is used to develop and support a theory, however
the theory itself must have a scientific basis - that is, it must have
a rational explanation that will predict behaviour in similar
circumstances. Simply observing that something happens is just an
observation of a fact, an experiment. Being able to repeat an
experiment and achieve the same outcome every time doesn't prove
anything other than that the experiment is repeatable, it doesn't
provide any explanation of why the experiment "works", nor predict the
likely outcome if the parameters are changed, nor provide any bounds
within which it "works" or "fails".

Without the explanation, there is no theory. There is no application
of scientific knowledge, no understanding of why the result occurs. It
is no more than faith - it's always worked before in their limited
experience, therefore they expect it to always work. Anyone who
performs work using such methods should be categorised as a trades
person. They are certainly not professionals applying scientific
theories or methods. They are not engineers.

 For this one, I
don't know what that means (it's obviously designed to fail).  So when
did programming becomes a process of gathering empirical evidence, as
opposed to understanding logic?  Seems like browser scripting would be
the worst discipline for such a change in strategy.

It is an extremely common strategy, encouraged by modern programming
environments that attempt to improve productivity by offering features
like IntelliSense, I call it programming by feel. If you dare
challenge the methodology, you'll be told they don't have time to
learn the language thoroughly, that they don't need to understand it
as long as it works.

The only explanation I have for why such programmers get away with it
is because their programs are compiled and very few ever get to see
the awfulness of the raw code. It seems that passing user acceptance
testing is the sole criterion of quality, that the source code totally
sucks is likely seen as a good way to make money on maintenance.

 

[Asen Bozhilov]

That "could result in 'true'" is very much a theoretical possibility; a
host object may result in any string when - typeof - is applied to it,
but it is extremely rare that they do result in anything that is not
already in the ECMAScript list, and the exception ('unknown' in IE when
testing ActiveX objects, methods and properties) is literally the only
one that I have ever encountered, or heard tell off.

You are rioght, but that behavior of `typeof' is not the same for
whole ActiveXObject instances in IE.

window.alert(typeof document.nodeType == 'unknown'); //false - typeof
number
window.alert(document instanceof ActiveXObject); //true

var XHR = new ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP');
window.alert(typeof XHR.open == 'unknown'); //true
window.alert(XHR instanceof ActiveXObject); //true

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Empirical evidence is used to develop and support a theory, however
the theory itself must have a scientific basis - that is, it must have
a rational explanation that will predict behaviour in similar
circumstances. Simply observing that something happens is just an
observation of a fact, an experiment. Being able to repeat an
experiment and achieve the same outcome every time doesn't prove
anything other than that the experiment is repeatable, it doesn't
provide any explanation of why the experiment "works", nor predict the
likely outcome if the parameters are changed, nor provide any bounds
within which it "works" or "fails".

However most of science is, in the *final* analysis, precisely what you
describe.

a set of propositions that may (or may not!) reflect an underlying
reality, whose predictions have failed to ever be falsified by
experiment, and whose propositions CAN in principle be falsified.

And which actually add some value that competing theories do not.

Cf Kuhn, Popper, Instrumentalism, et al.

Without the explanation, there is no theory. There is no application
of scientific knowledge, no understanding of why the result occurs. It
is no more than faith - it's always worked before in their limited
experience, therefore they expect it to always work. Anyone who
performs work using such methods should be categorised as a trades
person. They are certainly not professionals applying scientific
theories or methods. They are not engineers.

sadly, there are no final explanations for anything.

will the sun rise tomorrow? Can't say really. It always HAS...whether
that's because it obeys certain immutable laws of physics that we
BELIEVE to be universal true (nay DEFINE to be universally true) or
whether its because the Ngongobongo tribe absolutely do a special tribal
dance every sunset to make sure it does, is a very moot point.

Oh, and an explanation is not a theory, and certainly not a scientific
theory, nor is a scientific theory an explanation. It is if you like,
the expression of the result of a lot of experimental data in terms of
an algorithm. In the same way that the reality of our perceptions is a
compressed representation of all the salient features of all the data we
are subjected to.

E=mc^2 is a shorthand algorithm for calculating mass-energy
relationships. That is borne out by observation. I am not sure it
explains anything at all. Not in any fundamental way. Its just the
expression of a constancy of relationship between certain elements of a
world we have defined in certain precise terms.



'Because God wills it' is the ultimately irrefutable explanation for
everything. That doesn't make it a scientific theory in any sense.

A professional engineer is one who makes his living out of designing
engines. HOW he does it, is really no part of what he is.

Professional is no guarantee of quality.