John, almost as an aside, you tossed out:
But I would add an important
qualification: Many theories,
especially in physics, have
been established on the basis of
so many observations, that it
is practically impossible to
recreate all their
conclusions by using multiple analogies.
I don't follow your reasoning here.
Why would it be "practically impossible to recreate all their conclusions
by using multiple analogies."?
Let me cite the withered transition from
classical physics to relativistic physics. There were lots of classical
physics contraptions running which each represents a set of design choices on
physical constraints. Steam engines, plumbing, statistical behavior and
all kinds of things in classical physics were essentially unaffected because
the new, subjectively truer, model matches the large scale points as
well. But it clearly wasn't "practically impossible" to use
multiple analogies, which existed in the conversations of the scientists of
LAZ> In realistic settings, mathematically rigorous
> founder on the rocks of incomplete information.
I completely agree, and so would Leibniz, Peirce,
There's no surprise there! That's
why even well conceived software breaks in so many ways the first time it
compiles and runs. By the time it ships, it’s so full of Band-Aids
and patches its barely recognizable.
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com