> No, it is not! What he is saying, is that often we think we know the > answers, but we do not really understand the question. No, I think by bringing up such an example, he does more than saying that. The argument implied is something like:
1. Rob Studdert makes a prediction about technology. 2. A PhD in the 50s made a prediction about technology. 3. That PhD's prediction turned out to be ridiculous. 4. Rob Studdert's prediction is therefore ridiculous. Which is a logical fallacy. 4. may well turn out to be true, of course, but it does not follow from 1-3. Merely saying that people shouldn't be drawing firm conclusions about technology because it changes fast, is something else entirely, and something I would never have commented on. What I don't approve of, is that every time someone says that something may not be doable, somebody else brings up an example of something else that was said to be impossible, but is now consider the order of the day, so as to ridicule the original argument or the person making it. Or at least, I sometimes feel inclined to point out that their examples don't really prove anything. Also (not that this proves anything, either), I think you can find just as many examples of someone saying a long time ago that something was impossible or improbable, when it is still considered as such today. Or of people making completely unrealistic predictions about what technology would bring. One example that springs to mind now is an interview from 1950 with a Swedish scientist (I don't remember of what denomination), that was shown on TV a few years ago. This person was asked what he thought his country would look like in 50 years, i.e. in 2000 - to which he responded that he firmly believed everyone would be living in little "module homes" that might be transported around with a helicopter, and placed wherever you wanted to spend your time the next few days of weeks... > With more > knowledge we can often see a way around a problem, rather than why it > can not be done. It is axiomatic that "The more we know, the more we > realize we don't know". It is very easy to get to thinking we know > everything, but it has been proven over and over that there is many > times as many things we do not understand than there are things we do. > > Does that mean Rob is wrong? No, not necessarily; based on current > understanding he is correct. But we do not know if current understanding > is completely correct or not. Tomorrow someone could come up with some > new material that can absorb many times as many photons as the current > wafer material does. So, both viewpoints are valid, today. > Ah, yes, except Rob also argued that the current material can already register over 50% of the photons available, so there is not much to go on. You could also increase the max for the total amount registered (i.e. the "full-well capacity" of the sensor), but there is also a limit to how far you might go in utilising that, since you must also have a practical exposure setup. And the laws of physic probably also put some clear limits (independent of type of material) on the charges you can hold. But be that as it may. I think it is also worth noticing that Rob has never made statements like "there will be no camera able to resolve 22 bits." He is always a lot more specific than that, and talk about sensors of a certain size or material, and also, I think, imply that he is referring to a physical/optical setup similar to the one of current SLRs etc. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
