While reading Pierre Duhem’s The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, I was fascinated by the correspondence between his doctrine and that of Edsger W. Dijkstra. Despite one being a physicist and the other a computing scientist, both advocate for intellectual economy and elegance. They recognized, with modesty, the limits of our cognitive abilities and our resulting need for simplicity. Dijkstra famously observed:
The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague.
This striving for simplicity and abstraction is not specific to any single domain; it is driven by a universal need for understanding. For Duhem, this meant organizing physical theories to reach an accurate “natural classification” of phenomena. For Dijkstra, it was the necessity of understanding software systems deeply enough to formally prove their correctness.
Logical deduction through mathematical axiomatic systems is central to both. For Duhem, it is the deduction of physical consequences from hypotheses; for Dijkstra, it is the deduction of software correctness through the calculus of weakest preconditions.
Both scientists show their scorn towards inelegant solutions. Dijkstra maintained that:
Elegance is not a dispensable luxury but a factor that decides between success and failure.
Duhem, for instance, expressed frustration with the mechanical models of 19th-century English physicists:
Here is a book intended to expound the modern theories of electricity and to expound a new theory. In it there are nothing but strings which move around pulleys, which roll around drums, which go through pearl beads, which carry weights; and tubes which pump water while others swell and contract; toothed wheels which are geared to one another and engage hooks. We thought we were entering the tranquil and neatly ordered abode of reason, but we find ourselves in a factory.
This “factory” of mechanical complexity is a symptom of prioritizing industrial utility over scientific clarity, a shift often driven by short-term commercial incentives. Duhem observed that this confusion of science with industry has penetrated everywhere:
The evil has not only touched the texts and courses intended for future engineers. It has penetrated everywhere, propagated by the hatreds and prejudices of the multitude of people who confuse science with industry.
I conclude with Dijkstra’s reflection on why this battle for elegance is difficult to win:
Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better.