This conversation has been fascinating. I cannot help but think that various
poster's instructions to those interested - that those interested need several
years of graduate study, etc. - are clearly a cop out. It is possible that I
missed some crucial step of the conversation somewhere, but I this
I like this conversation .. its bugged me for years that it's difficult to
discuss computer science and mathematics with my friends. Indeed, I think
many of us find it a bit lonely.
I certainly feel uncomfortable telling them to go get a good education in
mathematics then we can chat! And when I
Friend pulsed me off-line. "Wot the hell you know about malaria? Somewhat
over the Top, mon frere!" I wuz stung! I have promised that ALL my postings
will be of real events that I have experienced or witnessed, so in defense, I
note that I indeed contracted malaria as a child in Africa. It
Actually, Steve, despite spending 40 years doing what it was I did, I
never felt an expert. One of my criteria for expertise, which I felt
I never met, was the capacity to explain a difficult subject to an
attentive, well-educated lay person. And the emperor's new clothes
has always been
Doug,
Thanks for this. I read it AFTER I had written my last post on this
subject, but I think this post is a pretty accurate expression of my
response, here. But your remarks here do salve my bemusement a bit.
Nick
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...
Actually, Steve, despite spending 40 years doing what it was I did, I never
felt an expert. One of my criteria for expertise, which I felt I never met,
was the capacity to explain a difficult subject to an attentive,
well-educated lay person. And the emperor's new clothes has always been one
of
Nick -
As usual, I'm of two minds. I appreciate your frustration, as I do
those of those more educated/trained in the relative sciences of the
problem under scrutiny.
I do not think it is unreasonable for someone such as yourself to try to
get a grasp on the phenomena of interest with a com
Nick replies to Douglas Roberts:
> First, It says something kind of funny about physics .
> that it will never
> explain anything that any of us are curious about
unless we first learn enough about it (physics) that
we can understand the explanation (in physical terms)?
> Second, it seems to sa
Re: obligation: sure. Get a background that provides you with a scientific
basis for understanding whatever particular aspect of science you find
especially fascinating at the moment, and I'm positive you will be able to
find an expert to explain it to you.
Myself; I would not, for example, ask a
Ok. What follows from that? Only experts should speak? Only experts
should think Or, Nick should shut up and stop talking about it? ? Don't e
xperts have the obligation to pull up their shorts and take the time to
explain it to the rest of us?I don't understand the intellectual world that
wou
There is *everything* to be learned from the phenomenon in question, if one
is just willing to buckle down and study the underlying science. Mechanical
engineering. Chemical Engineering. Physics. Fluid flow dynamics.
Mathematics. Kinematics. Statics. These sciences contain the language to
d
Well, a couple of points.
First, It says something kind of funny about physics . that it will never
explain anything that any of us are curious about.
Second, it seems to say that there is no educational advantage to . nothing
to be learned from . trying to connect principle to vernatcula
Ahem.
Thus working in a studio setting.
Don't think I am not observing the clamorous silence
in response to my post inviting you over to experiment with
what you think will happen,
what does happen, and
how you made it happen.
VEH
On Jul 4, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
De
Well, I guess all I can say is that I don't have the temperament to play
"thought experiments", or to spend endless cycles getting all hand wavy
about serious, complex physical systems behavior. Regarding the issue of
water flowing down the drain which originally started this thread, there are
app
Sarbajit,
I believe that for the purposes of some types of learning, Nick would consider
that a form of "fiddling." Certainly I would. This is most obvious if you are
trying to find out what would happen if you sit under the boddhi tree by
yourself for a while. However, it is presumably an appropri
As opposed to the (a ?) fourth way of simply setting under a boddhi tree and
isolating yourself from the world ?
Sarbajit
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
> ** **
>
> There are three ways to learn something: read, fiddle
Peter Lissaman writes, in relevant part:
> Incidentally, with reference to some discussions of high and low
> pressures at surfaces: ALL free surfaces for ANY fluid motion with
> stationary air as the contiguous external fluid are at the same
> CONSTANT pressure. How could they be otherwise?
Bu
Greetings, all --
Perhaps Doug can keep an eye out for developments of our new feathered
overlords:
http://gawker.com/5814318/african-grey-parrots-are-going-to-enslave-us-all
Happy Fourth!
- Claiborne -
FRIAM Applied Complexi
Dear Peter,
There are three ways to learn something: read, fiddle with things, and talk to
somebody. I think the best learning take place if one is doing all three at
the same time.
Nick
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
plis
19 matches
Mail list logo
