[Grovenet] 2 X 4 s
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.
> 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.
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
More information about the GroveNet