WARNING: The following paragraph by paragraph response to Mr. Williams is HIGHLY OFF-TOPIC AT THIS POINT
(but actually much more important than any discussion on EMC). In turn: "But we are not talking about electromagnetism, we are talking about electromagnetic compatibility which is a very different problem." I was making an analogy between solving a philosophical problem and something perhaps more familiar to the list members. Mr. Woodgate stated that reference to an absolute makes the solution impractical. I was pointing out that in fact absolutes are utterly essential, but boundary conditions (the "situation" in "situational ethics") must be considered. "You cannot ignore the political and economic factors which are not so easy to describe mathematically as the electromagnetism." Indeed, the political and economic factors are the boundary conditions. If economics were not a factor, every automobile would be a Rolls or a Ferrari. But the fact of the matter is there were more canvas-covered three-wheeled Citroens produced than Ferraris and Rolls combined. "Your second paragraph is factually correct, but in fact is about as much use as trying to use relativistic space-time theory as the basis of deciding a policy on dealing with speeding offences." That is an extremely poor analogy. The fact that an engineer, trained to think logically would intentionally or unintentionally come up with such an overblown exaggeration emphasizes the need for explaining these concepts by analogy to simpler cases. There is no need to resort to special (let alone general) relativity because vehicles in use today do not operate at relativistic speeds. This obvious statement is all that is necessary to invalidate Mr. William's fanciful analogy. The proper analogy to setting speed limits and enforcing them is as follows, >from simple principles: The purpose of transportation is to move people/things from point A to point B as expeditiously as possible. The faster things move, the greater the risk of injury. Weighing the risk vs. benefit, and taking account of such boundary conditions as road quality, types of vehicles, road purpose, driver expertise, etc., a compromise speed limit is arrived at which maximizes overall human satisfaction. The enforcement of those limits is arrived at by placing the limits at speeds the average driver finds reasonable, and enacting fines just sufficient to deter the minority who do not find the limits reasonable, with the amount of the fine set high enough that the small chance of getting caught remains a deterrent. Note the power of conceptual thinking. The above paragraph was based on the idea that people wanted to travel and ship things as quickly as possible. Most people in the first and second world would agree with that. Why? Because it makes human life easier and more productive, which in turn makes things easier again, allowing humans to devote more time to what they want to do, as opposed to what they have to do. That is how progress occurs. But what if "progress" is not considered an end in itself? What if contemplation of the Divine is considered the proper and sole business of mankind? Then you get societies like the Amish and Mennonites and likely some Eastern religions as well. And you have no need of Maxwell's Laws at all and speed limits are much more simply stated as not allowing your horse to gallop on certain sections of certain roads. There is no value judgement being made here. Just a recognition that basic principles influence everyday life, and the results of decisions made intentionally ignoring those principles end up quite unsatisfactory. > From: Nick Williams <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:01:27 +0100 > To: Ken Javor <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: EMC Ethics > > But we are not talking about electromagnetism, we are talking about > electromagnetic compatibility which is a very different problem. You > cannot ignore the political and economic factors which are not so > easy to describe mathematically as the electromagnetism. > > Your second paragraph is factually correct, but in fact is about as > much use as trying to use relativistic space-time theory as the basis > of deciding a policy on dealing with speeding offences. > > Respectfully! > > Nick. > > > > At 1:39 pm -0500 14/7/05, Ken Javor wrote: >> When solving a problem in electromagnetism, we start with absolutes, they >> are known as Maxwell's equations. In order to provide a meaningful answer, >> the equations must be evaluated taking into account the salient boundary >> conditions. >> >> The fact that the solution depends on the boundary conditions does not >> invalidate the fundamental equations which describe the behavior of >> electromagnetic phenomena. >> >>> From: John Woodgate <[email protected]> >>> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:20:30 +0100 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: EMC Ethics >>> >>> McInturff Gary <[email protected]> wrote (in >>> <[email protected]>) about >>> 'EMC Ethics', on Thu, 14 Jul 2005: >>> >>>> This brings up the issue of "situational ethics". Is it any more >>>> ethical to be just a little bit wrong for just a short time >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> than it is to just ignore the issue and try to do better some time when >>>> its more convenient? >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> I'm voting no on that. I suppose the risk was mitigated but not sure >>>> the ethics of the situation were affected. >>> >>> Once you bring 'absolutes' into the mix, you leave the real world at >>> high speed. >>> >>> Do doctors always tell the whole truth to patients? Do lawyers ever use >>> theatrical methods to convince juries? >>> -- >>> Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. >>> Deadlines are 90% of deadliness. >>> http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk >>> > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
