[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, 
that
a really old 2X4 really is pretty darn close to 2X4. They are straight as an 
arrow
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