I for one, have grown tired of the ad-hominem anti-intellectual attacks. This is supposed to be about science and engineering, not words. Therefore, I'd like to see analysis. As Lord Kelvin put it:
"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." What I want to see in the future are equations. Please use LaTex notation so we all can see what's going on. Until that happens, it's all just fuzzy semantics --- neither science nor engineering. If you make a claim, support it with equations. If you can't, then don't make the claim. It's that simple. On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Steve Rooke <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4 June 2010 07:11, Didier Juges <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ---- WarrenS <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ulrich posted a bunch of logic stuff, some of which I did not > understand. > >> > >> but I do think he missed the main point > >> > > > > I personally think Warren missed the point entirely, but it's just my > opinion. This statement is a good summary of what has been going on. You > cannot dismiss something that you do not understand, yet that's what you > have been trying to do for a long time now. > > I'm not sure that that the point was made clear or if even there was a > point to this unless you are taking a specific side. > > Examining things:- > > The physicist obviously had a a good general education which included > biology, genealogy, logic and nursery rhymes. He deduced correctly > that the likelihood of a black sheep occurring naturally via a second > occurrence of natural selection and that the black coat was due to a > genetic anomaly which indicated that it was very likely that the gene > for a black coat was in the sheep that were close to the this place > which meant that it was most likely that black sheep were in Germany. > He dismissed the idea that the farmer had just shipped the black sheep > into Germany because his daughter liked nursery rhymes as he logically > knew that farmers never do anything that costs them anything only > things that make them money. He remembered the age old saying, you'll > never see a farmer on a bike. He therefore deduced that this was proof > that there are black sheep in Germany. > > The mathematician was obviously deeply engrossed in his complex > mathematics education which took up most of his time and didn't care > to much for other subjects. He was a romantic and remembered his > mother saying all the nursery rhymes to him when he was young. Being > that he spent so much of his time in his own head, he had no real idea > of life outside that and really had a childlike attitude to things in > the outside World. When he saw the farm and the black sheep he > obviously thought of a happy farming family and deduced that the > really nice farmer had gone out of his way to find the only black > sheep in Europe so that he could make his daughter happy. It did not > cross his mind that a black sheep had anything to do with genetics but > he had enough sense to know that animals had the same colours on each > side, after all the zebra in his little farm set he had as a child had > stripes on both sides. That was logical to him so he deduced that > there was at least one black sheep in Germany. > > The logician ate, drank and slept pure logic all his life. As far as > he was concerned, the World was all binary, true and false, black and > white. To him everything in the World could be explained by logic and > everything was logical. As logic explained everything he had no time > for any other disciplines as they were superfluous, after all, > everything could be explained by logic. Having never ventured from his > deep dark dungeon with black and white walls he was intrigued to see > the World outside. He made no assumptions on what he saw and always > understood that everything could be explained by logic. It was > therefore completely logical for him to deduce that what he was > looking at was the black side of a sheep whereas he could not make a > deduction on the other sheep as they were all facing the other way. So > his deduction that there was at least one sheep with one black sheep > was perfectly logical to him and he went back to enjoying his train > journey. > > And the moral of the story is, you only see the World with eyes that > are open and been trained to see what you have experience in. To step > out of the square you are standing in can be very hard but the best > approach to life is to adopt that of a child and enjoy all the > wonderment around you. > > > Warren, you probably would be a more effective communicator if you did > not see everything as a personal attack. Unfortunately, the value of your > messages is lost in pointless arguments about who is right. > > Well, I do think that there have certainly been quite a number of > personal attacks and i believe that Warren had kept his cool under > such abuse for quite a while but there are limits to this. > > > It is too bad that a lot of good information has to be dug up through > mountains of "less valuable stuff". > > I guess we have to make the environment conducive to such sharing with > positive feedback. > > > Bruce has been trying to help you and you dismissed him. You were > convinced from the first second that your method was the best there was, and > absolutely refused to admit that it could be improved in any way, and you > could not even be bothered to explain the limits of that method. Now, Ulrich > tries to help you and you dismiss him the same way. > > Now I disagree with you entirely here. Warren has presented something > that he wanted others to look at and try. Bruce was not interested in > even looking at it without changing it with his entrenched opinions. > Before you can criticise something you should evaluate it properly > without making comment until you are finished that process otherwise > it is what we call being rude. > > Bruce was convinced that it could be improved without even evaluating > it and Warren has been saying all along lets try it this way before we > all get to criticise it. Sadly it is in the nature of man to think > that they all know better than any other man, it takes a great deal of > maturity to accept what others may say or even to accept that there > may be two differing opinions as it's mostely a case of each oponent > trying to make the other say what they believe. We have caused this > problem due to the way that we have structured society to be highly > competitive. In that way society raises as high as the highest person > can reach. Other societies have a different approach, take the bee for > instance, there is no inter-bee competition with the worker bees there > (yes there are other factors between the drones and any new queens, > yes I'm a trained apiarists). Bees work together in collective > competition so the value of the hive is worth more than the sum of the > bees. It's like the bee society supports each and every other bee > reaching its highest potential just like bees standing on the > shoulders of each and every other bee to reach far higher than any > single bee to reach. > > > If I recall correctly, the argument started because Bruce faulted you for > stating that your method was "good enough" without characterizing the limits > of that statement, not because Bruce criticized the method by itself. Then > you quickly refused to accept that there might be merit to such > characterization. > > I think the boot was on the other foot. I think that Warren said it > was "good enough" and Bruce said that it could never be. > > > Every method has limitations. If you do not know the limits, how do you > know an experiment is within the capabilities of that method? Simply > achieving the same results (under some conditions) as an expensive piece of > test equipment only has anecdotal value if you do not know the limits. More > testing certainly improves the confidence, but it is not a replacement for a > sound analysis of the errors. Otherwise, it is nothing more than an > interesting gadget. > > I think we already know by now that this is not the results of a > single "test" so it makes this comment academic. > > > I think I have heard enough about the tight PLL method for a while, and I > am ready for another thread. > > It is sad that it has come down to statements like this when people > have tried to give something of value to the community but have been > denigrated because they have not done it the way that some entrenched > member sees as the only way to do it and will not move on. All of this > could have been avoided if some curtsey had been applied earlier on > and so the environment would have been open for such things to > progress. Sadly we all have ourselves to blame for this, any of us, > all of us could have shouted out and said lets make this space a place > to share and respect each other, then our passion as time-nuts would > have been satisfied. > > Best regards, > Steve > > > Didier > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > > and follow the instructions there. > > > > > > -- > Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD > The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once. > - Einstein > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
