I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not trying to engage you in a 'sophomoric' debate. I came to the existential philosophical argument from mathematics and the computer sciences, not the other way around. I started my interest in computing science through automating proof (mathematical and computational). I doubt you care, but it's more about looking at the big picture of software development versus the little picture. You can't build anything if you keep testing the first thing for every bug, including everything it was built with, including all the mathematics used to reason about it.

But I'm sure there are two ways to respond to my comment: pretend you know what you are talking about, or admit you could be wrong and care to engage me in a real conversation. I've been down the same road hundreds of times on the internet, and it is hard to find people to talk to about things and meet in some kind of scientific, logical middle. But if that's not your thing, oesn't bother me if all you came here for was to prove yourself right about the noble ethics of your science. At least I'm no longer trapping my mind in a paradox of it's own creation. (Or am I? I never really know).

Logic is very different from science, that's all I have to say. Rigor is for precision, not discovery.