On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 00:23:57 Carl Sorenson wrote: ... >I don't see how it was rude. Considering that you have a hobby of inventing >new units and usages that essentially no one else on the planet uses, how >could that be anything other than a "pet interest"?
Unfortunately both your choice of words and the way you put it, Carl, could have been perceived as 'rude'. You may have not meant it, but the context and all did pass that impression. Now, I'm not in the business of 'inventing new units'. *AS A SCIENTIST* my MAIN interest is to address this issue from a scientific basis. When I made use of 'new units' it was ALWAYS in that spirit. Since I was engaging in *discussions of principle* I evidently had to "come up" with such terminologies just to be able to make the subject of discussion *tangible*! Therefore, if someone would rather see 'pips' for 'percentime seconds', or 'quinto' for 'typo', etc, please be my guest. I'm not too fussy about this aspect. Now, please bear in mind that scientific terms may not be 'popular' depending on the subject, or even "required" to be used by the general population. Some of these are... "hidden in the background", so to speak. Evidently with the issue of measurements this would likely not be the case, but still the principle remains the same, so I'm not too concerned or bothered that 'noone else in the planet would be using them' since they haven't been made into an official proposal or something yet. But when the time comes, they evidently could be! So, to summarize, I'm sorry, but this has NOTHING to do with its being a... *personal* "pet" interest, but rather a discussion of issues. Issues that by their nature would evidently involve creation of new things eventually if one agrees to proceed how I proposed. > And for you to think we >need to change SI and system six billion people use just to fit your ideas >of what is important is astounding considering your pessimism toward U.S. >metrication. ? No, I respectfullly disagree. Changes to SI WOULD be in order if scientists were REALLY serious about *THE ISSUE OF METROLOGY ITSELF*. As pointed out by several of our members here there ARE significant SERIOUS framework flaws with the SI system. This is utterly undeniable (like inconsistency with prefix names and capitalization, just to mention one). So, *from a scientific basis*, if metrology had been properly developed, these kinds of mistakes/flaws would not happen, pure and simple. But noone is at fault here, simply because that's how "systems of measurements" evolved. It's like a dress of rags, with pieces changed, renewed here and there with the end result been a real mess! Now, please understand that I'm debating NOT the *SI system itself*, but rather the whole issue of metrology itself, how it should be conducted, which unfortunately hasn't developed yet into something I envision should be necessary. Again, SCIENCE, that's my focus, my friend. Now, eventually, with technology changes may occur more quickly than you think, maybe even at a press of a button! So, I'm not worried about eventual changes to SI which I firmly believe WILL come, even though I recognize it won't happen in my lifetime. I regard this more as a pioneer work than anything else. > You think certain things are incredibly important; the other >six billion people don't; ergo, we have a "pet interest". > Well... It's a pity you seem to still not "get it". I apparently failed to make myself better understood by you. Perhaps there should be no additional discussions then, but perhaps based on what followed I see potential for us to continue talking though. >>Secondly, I didn't say (and please PROVE me >>by showing ANY quote of mine to that effect!) >>'we should revamp SI itself'! > >You have expressed that opinion many times, including in the email in >question. I was pointing out the inconsistency. If you really want quotes >(sigh), >'until this critical mission is finally addressed' >'Only after the above can we, scientists, really dream of a TRULY universal, >stable and *definitive* "system of units". The SI system could evidently be >a good departing point for that, but it CERTAINLY IS NOT the ideal answer >**yet**!' >[from the most recent post] >'In other words, the SI would have to suffer some "corrections" to be in >harmony with the FIELD OF METROLOGY.' >'The SI system is actually VERY close' >'I even feel that we can STILL salvage it' >'get the SI to CONFORM to it' > ? Very clever, Carl, but again, you STILL missed my point. Sigh... (to use your same sign of frustration... But that's ok, we just need to keep talking! :-) ). Two points. First of all, the word *REVAMP* is TOO STRONG AN ADJECTIVE! Some changes that would be in order IN MY VIEW do NOT constitute 'revamping'!!! (More on this below) Secondly, let me try to put it again. My focus is *the issue of METROLOGY ITSELF*. SI is a CONSEQUENCE of that. Evidently, *IF* FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE changes to SI would be in order, given that METROLOGY WOULD HAVE PRECEDENCE, it follows that SI *COULD* (and should) ultimately require ***changes***, not necessarily 'revamping'. That's my understanding of the English word in question here, again, I repeat. > >>the ***I-S-S-U-E itself*** of a *system >>of units* should be PROPERLY dealt with, >>i.e. FROM THE GROUND UP! > >Marcus, I assure you that the prolific use of capitals and asterisks lends >no persuasive power to your writing. It merely suggests that this is a very >emotional issue for you. Perhaps you think that was another offensive >comment, but I'm just letting you know. > I use stars, separators, capital letters, etc just because they help *emphasize* points. They're not meant to be regarded as 'emotional', screaming, yelling or anything of that nature! It's unfortunate that SMTP protocols are very poor and do not allow us to make better use of other tools for emphasis purposes. Sorry about that. >Actually, the metric system was built from scratch. It was the best they >could come up with in about 1800, and they (eventually) came up with a >phenomenal system by any reasonable standard. With the revisions and work >that led to SI as it is now, we have an amazingly awesome system of >measurement. They did build it from the ground up. We've learned more >about measurement and science since then, and we've adapted the system to >its current, very mature state. I cannot understand why on earth you >consider reforming SI a "critical mission" to address. > Carl, I'm not arguing that the SI system didn't evolve into something good (or 'awesome', as you put it). I'm arguing PROCESS, my friend! Unfortunately, things like coherence, for instance, are quite recent and a result of evolution, evidently, no doubt. But these are mostly product of things discovered bit by bit than a *concerted effort* to work on frame/groundwork!!! However, my point still remains. BTW, what profession do you practice, Carl, if you don't mind my asking? The reason I'm asking you this is simply because perhaps you may not be familiar with certain concepts when it comes to the issue of *defining* fields of study. **No offense is intended with my question, PLEASE**!!! I'll give you another example. Logic. People use logic and take it for granted in their everyday lives, but what they don't know is that "behind the scenes" there is this SCIENCE that was developed that now serves as the backbone for things we call logical. Ordinary people never heard of premisses, metatheorems, affirmations and other concepts of logic. Yet, these exist. Again, it's another prime example of what I'm getting at, Carl. Metrology should be to SI what logic is to people's way of life and decision making processes and thoughts. It's just that, my friend. >>Does anybody discuss whether 2+2 is 4? Alas, >>if metrology were treated the same way, > >>If this topic were not so surrounded and >>treated pettilly as a political puppet we >>would not be even discussing metrication here! > >>There is NO POLITICS involved in such issues >>as it rightfully BELONGS DEFINITIVELY in the >>realm of science. > >But metrology is not the same thing as basic math. Why not? It certainly could (and IMHV *should*)! > For one thing, it is far >more important for a person to know basic math than to understand esoteric >principles of measurement. Just like in logic people would not need to know what metatheorems are to USE logic, people would not necessarily need to know metrology to use systems of units!!! However, what metrology translates into would be taught to people in the form of the SI system. But let it be known that there would be a RIGOROUS SCIENCE model behind. > I'm not saying that a basic knowledge of SI >prefixes is esoteric, but you are talking about the theory of metrology, not >basic literacy. > BINGO!!! (I guess... i.e. perhaps you got it after all!...) And it's in 'the theory of metrology' that one would find things like coherence, consistency and other fundamental concepts that ONLY NOW have emerged and been embraced by the current SI construct, with still few exceptions though. >Units and systems of measure are political (especially if you include the >non-governmental kind of politicking) because policy decisions can have >large impacts on economies and daily life. But my contention is that it COULD be otherwise! These things could be dealt with differently, should metrology be elevated to its rightful place IMHV. > When a nation metricates, it >changes its culture to some degree. Well... perhaps we shouldn't go there, again. We've had this discussion about culture several times here. I *vehemently* disagree with attaching a purely scientific issue with culture, despite my recognition that it MAY *influence* it like in sayings, proverbs, expressions and the likes. > There can in fact be costs to changing >measurement systems. True. > You have many times expressed the desire to legislate >changes--how on earth are you going to separate these things from politics? > I'm merely offering ANOTHER approach to solve this problem (metrication), a one that could spare us of political wranglings, disputes and all sorts of things that are typical when politicians are involved, *THAT'S ALL*! Put this in the hands of SCIENCE, with standardization bodies around the world as sort of "watchdogs" or implementers of such (just like professional associations are responsible to make sure that engineers, dentists, doctors, etc, perform their duties in accordance with firm, authoritative, rigorous standards of practice). If we tackled this problem from this perspective we wouldn't have the problems we're faced with. Libertarians would be satisfied, politicians also (since they wouldn't have to deal with this 'hot potato' anymore. It would be *out of their hands*!!!), and a host of problems would be addressed. Utopic? Maybe. ;-) :-) But certainly worth considering and discussing, don't you think? >And you are quite wrong on another point. Even fields of study can be quite >political. I study computer science, and it is indeed a science. We have >quantitative measures, well establish processes and algorithms, and even >standards bodies. Yet Computer Science is an extremely political field of >study! ??? Now you lost me, Carl. How so? How can you say that? In what sense do you call this 'political'? Computer Science dictates that the field of handling information be conducted a certain way. Alas, if one uses Pascal, Fortran or C++ is totally unrelated! ANY of these, STILL, conforms to the rigors of computer science tenets. So, I'm sorry, you got me confused now. > Just because it is a field of study and scientific doesn't mean it >is like 2+2=4. For example, ISO came up with a standard seven-layer network >model called OSI. They started like the ground up, like you say, but it >utterly failed because it simply wasn't as good as the IP Protocol Graph >that came into use. We didn't realize that until later. Very good example, Carl. Interesting perspective. However, I contend that either BOTH OSI and the TCP/IP 'protocols' could be regarded as different products (Fortran vs. C++), or that perhaps the issue of networking protocoling ITSELF should deserve to be developed "a notch further"!!! Now, there is also another point worth considering and one which your observation above brings about that could indeed be subject for discussion. Can metrology offer the "diversity" of options for systems like one sees in computer science, or can it be made to be much less flexible like math is? In other words, do YOU believe that it would be possible in metrology to allow discrepant frameworks? I, personally, contend that by its very nature the answer should be an emphatic NO, if certain rigorous principles are built into it, like decimals, coherence, etc! Needless to say that IFPists would desperately want to disagree with my contention! He, he, he... > The history of the >metric system has parallels... Agreed! I see your point. And that's regrettable. But, oh well, it's probably the nature of the field. Many scientific accomplishments have been a result of lack of planning, it's only much later that rigorous models have been built and that ultimately supported what had already been developed! Logic and Management Science being prime examples of that. Perhaps there is noone to blame for this, that's how it happened. However, it shouldn't preclude us from attempting to *organize* this thing, just like in my two examples above. >Average folks already don't pay attention to the scientists at CGPM or >whatever it is say so why would they give a hoot what some other scientist >somewhere says? > Acceptance of professional tools usually is always subject to the scientific way of going about these things, Carl. Once this becomes a TRULY matter of science 'average folks' would HAVE to follow the "dictates of the classroom", so to speak. Education, my friend, this is what produces engineers, dentists and all other professions around us, with few exceptions. Nobody squabbles about whether one should use FEM to evaluate structures behaviors or Crack Propagation Mechanics to perform fatigue analyses! They just do it, period! The old fail safe concept is simply replaced by it, end of story! And once this is done, university curricula are appropriately "updated". Do you know what I mean? I'm truly enjoying this discussion, Carl. Thank you for sharing your pertinent views. It surely is helping us (and me in particular) address potential issues emerging from it. Take care, Carl, Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
