[Grovenet] 2 X 4 s

allnutt allnutt at verizon.net
Thu Jun 16 09:02:49 PDT 2005

But it sure is fun to open up a wall in an old house and discover, by golly, 
a really old 2X4 really is pretty darn close to 2X4. They are straight as an 
and no knots either.  Then you add the square nails....

Katie (It's all fun and I love following the proof that 1>0. You know for 
mathematicians they can't just know it is true, they have to prove it.)
And thanks for the reminder about the mars sattelite. I can remember my 
chemistry teacher years and years ago shouting , Units! Units! Units!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Morelli" <jo.david at verizon.net>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Evidence is underwhelming

> On Wednesday, June 15, 2005, at 04:02  PM, Krystof Zmudzinski wrote:
>> Also, there this strange obsession with the source of information or 
>> ideas on this group.  Why does it matter so much where the information 
>> comes from?
>> If a high-school drop out says that 2 and 2 is 4 it doesn't make it 
>> wrong, does it?
> It isn't the education level, it is the education acquired that affects 
> the ability to interpret the data.  Someone who is ignorant of lumber 
> sizing may think that a 2x2 laid upon a 2x2 is as tall as a 4x4.  In that 
> case 2 and 2 doesn't make 4.  Someone who is ignorant of the technical 
> details of a data set may make naive assumptions that are wrong.
> You know that 1 + 1 = 10 if the information is coming from a binary 
> source.  And 6+6= C in hexadecimal source.  Both are perfectly accurate in 
> their home environment and terribly misleading if quoted out of context. 
> Heck, just using english units as if they were metric units is enough to 
> toss a Mars satellite away.  Data can be useless or useful depending upon 
> the source.  If I give you 2000, 12, and 0.8 that data is pretty useless. 
> If I tell you that the sources were an ohm-meter, volt-meter, and 
> amp-meter you actually can use them.
>> I understand that Christers, Republicans, and capitalists are 
>> automatically suspect on this forum but you have to use a better argument 
>> to discredit the message than simply discrediting the messenger, 
>> especially one who tries to back his argument with some facts.
>> Krystof
> We should try to address the facts rather than the messenger.  Unless the 
> messenger has altered the message while carrying it.  In those cases we 
> should be aware of the bias introduced to attempt to restore the data to 
> its original state.  Or we should have some means to access the original 
> data.  We all have bias.  I believe that Intel's products depend upon bias 
> for function.  But to use it, you have to understand it.
> David
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet 

More information about the GroveNet mailing list