He is using debating team rules for a mailing list conversation. When anyone with any sense should know, "We don't go by no rules, Man" <GRIN>.
-- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Paul Stenquist wrote: > 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
