You're suggesting I presented this is a logical argument rather than an observation. That in itsellf is absurd. I didn't draw any such conclusions. I didn't say that either prediction is or was ridiculous. Read my post again. Apparently, your understanding is very limited. Paul On Sep 9, 2006, at 12:53 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
> >> 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. > No, I think by bringing up such an example, he does more than saying > that. The argument implied is something like: > > 1. Rob Studdert makes a prediction about technology. > 2. A PhD in the 50s made a prediction about technology. > 3. That PhD's prediction turned out to be ridiculous. > 4. Rob Studdert's prediction is therefore ridiculous. > > Which is a logical fallacy. 4. may well turn out to be true, of > course, > but it does not follow from 1-3. > > Merely saying that people shouldn't be drawing firm conclusions about > technology because it changes fast, is something else entirely, and > something I would never have commented on. What I don't approve of, is > that every time someone says that something may not be doable, > somebody > else brings up an example of something else that was said to be > impossible, but is now consider the order of the day, so as to > ridicule > the original argument or the person making it. > > Or at least, I sometimes feel inclined to point out that their > examples > don't really prove anything. > > Also (not that this proves anything, either), I think you can find > just > as many examples of someone saying a long time ago that something was > impossible or improbable, when it is still considered as such > today. Or > of people making completely unrealistic predictions about what > technology would bring. One example that springs to mind now is an > interview from 1950 with a Swedish scientist (I don't remember of what > denomination), that was shown on TV a few years ago. This person was > asked what he thought his country would look like in 50 years, i.e. in > 2000 - to which he responded that he firmly believed everyone would be > living in little "module homes" that might be transported around > with a > helicopter, and placed wherever you wanted to spend your time the next > few days of weeks... >> 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. >> > Ah, yes, except Rob also argued that the current material can already > register over 50% of the photons available, so there is not much to go > on. You could also increase the max for the total amount registered > (i.e. the "full-well capacity" of the sensor), but there is also a > limit > to how far you might go in utilising that, since you must also have a > practical exposure setup. And the laws of physic probably also put > some > clear limits (independent of type of material) on the charges you > can hold. > > But be that as it may. I think it is also worth noticing that Rob has > never made statements like "there will be no camera able to resolve 22 > bits." He is always a lot more specific than that, and talk about > sensors of a certain size or material, and also, I think, imply > that he > is referring to a physical/optical setup similar to the one of current > SLRs etc. > > - Toralf > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
