[USER=11869]@Kartoffel hears about a new ap and contacts the programmer-designer and says, "You crazy son of a bitch. We've been saying the whole time that you've completely made all this up."
[/USER]
Firstly I find it funny that you choose a program for your example relating me, makes me wonder if it's a coincidence or if you read my past posts...
Bu let's get to the meat of it: No I wouldn't, because of several things:
1)
A program is not a hypothesis; so I don't need to proof the program (an argument that counts for most of the things you mentioned)
2) Even if you now construct hastely a hypothesis, what exactly should it be? That the programm runs as intended? That's what testing is for. That it's a valid program? That's what the compiler checks, it wouldn't even run as an app if it didn't take this hurdle.
All in all let me repeat: A program is not a hypothesis. You can only verify or falsify these, everything else can be used as a base to make one or as material to generate your data for this.
3) No programmer has a problem to show me the sources of his application if really needed, because there is something called
source code.
4) And seriously: Writing a complex program from the scratch up without using a library nor looking things up in a documentation takes same serious dedication and skill. Someone doing a program like this and generating something that actually works is someone that deserves respect.
Writing a programm is different then doing something scientific you can't verify a program per se, only arguments you make about its properties (that it's bugfree, that it does certain stuff, that it's GUI enables users to do something faster than another kind of GUI; stuff like that).
You might consider reading one or two papers before you say nonsensical things about something you seem to not have any deeper understanding of. But that's okay, todays world has already accumulated so much information, that it's impossible to be versed in everything. To claim having found a way to explain all there is can't be taken serious by default because no one will ever be able to incorporate everything.
5) I'll may be a little bit drastic here from time to time in my choice of words, but that is mearely to fit better in. I'd never say something like that to someone from face to face. That's rude and does nothing to validate my arguments. Because you know,
resorting to insults is like a confession that you ran out of real arguments.
And regarding you I don't even a new argument, because you still didn't give sources. If you haven't noticed: I did not discredit your theory at all (neither did I the opposite); I just basically said without sources (or detailed description how you got your data) it's not scientific at all. I just critised your methodology as invalid. That your theory is invalid by a transitive relationship is just one little side effect by sticking too scientific standards. As a scientist you should not have that much of a problem to come up with proper citations. Because that's one of the most important things a scientist has to care about nowadays, if he doesn't want to loose his credibilty and possible
more.
And by the way, don't forget to mention which citation style you used, that makes it easier to check if you properly citated. Because not every source is like the other. Oh and no Wikipedia. Everyone can write there, so it's frowned upon as a source, like every academic will attest you. A source without a clear author is not worth much.
