No, it is not! What he is saying, is that often we think we know the answers, but we do not really understand the question. With more knowledge we can often see a way around a problem, rather than why it can not be done. It is axiomatic that "The more we know, the more we realize we don't know". It is very easy to get to thinking we know everything, but it has been proven over and over that there is many times as many things we do not understand than there are things we do.
Does that mean Rob is wrong? No, not necessarily; based on current understanding he is correct. But we do not know if current understanding is completely correct or not. Tomorrow someone could come up with some new material that can absorb many times as many photons as the current wafer material does. So, both viewpoints are valid, today. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Toralf Lund wrote: >> I know you have said that. And of course the qualifier is "given the >> technology as Rob understands it." It reminds me of the Cal Tech >> mathematics PhD who said in the early fifties that a car couldn't >> possibly exceed 150 mph from a standing start in a quarter mile. >> What's the record now? 335 or so. >> > That's absurd logic. What you're saying is essentially that Rob must be > wrong now because someone else was wrong in the past, about something > else entirely. > > > - Toralf > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
