In science, we first verify our procedures and the process by which we got our results.  Then we validate it against reality.  For example, I wrote a code that simulated galaxies colliding.  The main verification was to ensure the subset of physics we were using was properly coded, and that we had sufficient physics and resolution that the results were plausible.  The validation is what tackled the larger issue of whether the results were 'right', whether they were meaningful or not.  This validation was best done by comparing it against astronomical observations of collisional remnants.

Put simply, verification verifies that the process works, but validation validates results.  With that in mind, I wrote a short piece this month for my monthly RPGnet game&game design column, which is in its 14th year now.  If you're interested in how V&V works for games, check it out!  The primary difference between science and game design is in the validation.  In science, we validate that our results are real.  In game design, we validate that our results are fun.

Tuesdays at The Satellite Diaries and Friday at The Daytime Astronomer (twitter @skyday)