Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 11 Oct 2006 20:25 T Wake wrote: > "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote > > > OK, maybe you're right. From your viewpoint, how would a > > non-aggression pact signal a non-alliance? > > A better, more relevant, question would be in which circumstances is a > non-aggression pact the _same_ as an alliance? Your question returns to the > black and white argument. There is nothing to say having alliances do not > include non-aggression pacts. The difficulty comes in assuming a > non-aggression pact is the same as an alliance. As in "tomatos are red", "this cricket ball is red". Therefore all cricket balls are tomatos. Year 5 debate ? Graham
From: John Larkin on 11 Oct 2006 22:08 On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:31:08 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:9lgqi2dkh1p4583a5tp94s6odq0j844p22(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:31:13 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>message >>>news:820qi252n7609c4ouhrd8n2pj38mtpfe9h(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:16:58 -0700, JoeBloe >>>> <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:00:25 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >>>>> >>>>>>No, Ockham's Razor suggests >>>>> >>>>> Totally retarded. >>>> >>>> "Ockham's Razor" is not a law of nature, it's an easy way to avoid >>>> thinking about things that might hurt your head. >>> >>> >>>It's served the advancement of science and technology well for hundreds of >>>years. If you remember, it says that "given equal consistency with the >>>facts, the simplest explanation is almost always the right one." >> >> It hasn't "served" science at all. Scientific "explanations" demand >> proof, not parables. Cite OR in a scintific paper, as proof of a >> phenomenon, and the peer reviewers will shoot you dead. OR is pop >> science at best. > >Still simplistic (although with less pun intended this time). There has to >be a point at which two otherwise equal theories need to be differentiated. >The Razor is the commonly accepted practice for this. It most certainly is not. Experiment is the way theories are proven or falsified. Read Smolin's book, "The Trouble With Physics." It's full of examples of theories in physics that were simple, beautiful, wildly acclaimed, and dead wrong. >Granted, the paper >would not state "Ockhams Razor means XYZ" but that doesn't mean it isn't >used in theories. I think you have mixed metaphors by bringing in the real >world engineering solutions - yes there may be a convoluted answer needed, >but that it is still the simplest, working, solution which is used. > Not true there, either. Often the simplest solution is non-orthogonal, in that too few adjustable parameters control too many behaviors. That makes for ugly, often unworkable, tradeoffs. Often a more complex design is safer to use because various parameters don't strongly interact. I doubt you can find a serious scientific paper that mentions OR. John
From: John Larkin on 11 Oct 2006 22:25 On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:30:49 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:452D52B3.95C3D22D(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >>> I think you have mixed metaphors by bringing in the real >>> world engineering solutions - yes there may be a convoluted answer >>> needed, >>> but that it is still the simplest, working, solution which is used. >> >> Engineers pretty much invariably like the simplest solution ! > > >And I'll wager that even John goes for the simplest solution *that is >consistent with all the data he has*. No. See my post above. Given imperfect data, I'd be inclined towards a more flexible - more complex - solution to give me wiggle room to adjust for the unexpected. For example, if I'm not sure about what noise spectrum a data acquisition board might see, I might use more opamps, or not use a circuit where a single component value adjusts both gain and bandwidth, or bandwidth and loop stability. Sometimes more complex circuits are more reliable and easier to understand/tune than simpler ones. The same thing happens in software: the simplest possible solution to a given algorithmic requirement (and there must be one) would likely collapse if you tried to change anything, and is likely unintelligible as well. Clarity and flexibility are more important than simplicity. >F = m1^1.0000000032 * m2^0.999999982 * (g-0.000000000016), but he didn't, >despite the fact that that equation would certainly have given the same >results, to within the experimental accuracy of the day. He didn't. Why? >Because of Ockham's razor--there's no need for the added complexity, so why >add it? That's not the reason he picked 2. He picked 2 because it's correct. Because the integral of x is precisely x^2/2 and can't be anything else. > >It's one thing to be open-minded to more complex solutions. (Although, I >have to say, I'm glad Newton wasn't. Are you suggesting that perhaps the greatest physicist in human history wasn't open minded? I suggest that he did the math right. John
From: lucasea on 11 Oct 2006 23:18 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:uu8ri25d43ms9k07u8ued1dc2rde6fqmru(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:30:49 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:452D52B3.95C3D22D(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> T Wake wrote: >>> >>>> I think you have mixed metaphors by bringing in the real >>>> world engineering solutions - yes there may be a convoluted answer >>>> needed, >>>> but that it is still the simplest, working, solution which is used. >>> >>> Engineers pretty much invariably like the simplest solution ! >> >> >>And I'll wager that even John goes for the simplest solution *that is >>consistent with all the data he has*. > > No. See my post above. Given imperfect data, I'd be inclined towards a > more flexible - more complex - solution to give me wiggle room to > adjust for the unexpected. Those are the new data that I'm talking about. You don't automatically gravitate to the more complex solution. You wait for it to become necessary (i.e., "the unexpected). For example, if I'm not sure about what > noise spectrum a data acquisition board might see, I might use more > opamps, or not use a circuit where a single component value adjusts > both gain and bandwidth, or bandwidth and loop stability. > > Sometimes more complex circuits are more reliable and easier to > understand/tune than simpler ones. The same thing happens in software: > the simplest possible solution to a given algorithmic requirement (and > there must be one) would likely collapse if you tried to change > anything, and is likely unintelligible as well. Clarity and > flexibility are more important than simplicity. > > >>F = m1^1.0000000032 * m2^0.999999982 * (g-0.000000000016), but he didn't, >>despite the fact that that equation would certainly have given the same >>results, to within the experimental accuracy of the day. He didn't. Why? >>Because of Ockham's razor--there's no need for the added complexity, so >>why >>add it? > > That's not the reason he picked 2. He picked 2 because it's correct. Where did 2 come from? There is no 2 in Newton's equation for the force due to gravity (which is what is above.) I will assume you mean 1, since those are the exponents in that equation. What is your basis for saying that? It's just a model that explains experimental observations. Why is 1 more correct than 1.00000000032. Prove it--i.e., prove that 1 (exactly) represents the data observed better than 1.00000000032. > Because the integral of x is precisely x^2/2 and can't be anything > else. Where did the integral of x come from? I never mentioned the integral of x, and there is nothing squared in the equation above. >>It's one thing to be open-minded to more complex solutions. (Although, I >>have to say, I'm glad Newton wasn't. > > Are you suggesting that perhaps the greatest physicist in human > history wasn't open minded? I suggest that he did the math right. Again, what math leads to the equation for the force due to gravity? It is an empirical observation. Eric Lucas >
From: John Larkin on 11 Oct 2006 23:30
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:18:02 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>F = m1^1.0000000032 * m2^0.999999982 * (g-0.000000000016), Ah, gravitational force is independent of distance, as Occam's Razor predicts. That certainly is a useful simplification. >Where did 2 come from? There is no 2 in Newton's equation for the force due >to gravity (which is what is above.) John |