If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1121
|
|||
|
|||
"RSD99" wrote in
news:y0Hud.6173$xa6.5154@trnddc09: "Jon Pike" posted: "... Yes, but, since you seem to have come into this thread rather late in the game, I'll give you a touch of background. Someone asked about the whether 8mp digital had "theoretical equivalent resolution" to 35mm film. From there Roger N. Clark posted a bunch of very wide ranging statements based on his 'tests.' I pointed out that his tests were severely flawed from many aspects, and he used his claim to having been an editor for a scientific journal for many years as a trump card, rather than actually answer any of the questions I was asking. ..." First: The "points" you tried to point out are and were wrong. And so are the points you are trying to make in your idiotic thread on "12-Stop Film." Simply declaring them "wrong" doesn't make it so. If you want to discuss things intelligently, and if you expect any further replies after this one, then discuss things -intelligently-. -snip the trolling- -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet |
#1122
|
|||
|
|||
"RSD99" wrote in
news:y0Hud.6173$xa6.5154@trnddc09: "Jon Pike" posted: "... Yes, but, since you seem to have come into this thread rather late in the game, I'll give you a touch of background. Someone asked about the whether 8mp digital had "theoretical equivalent resolution" to 35mm film. From there Roger N. Clark posted a bunch of very wide ranging statements based on his 'tests.' I pointed out that his tests were severely flawed from many aspects, and he used his claim to having been an editor for a scientific journal for many years as a trump card, rather than actually answer any of the questions I was asking. ..." First: The "points" you tried to point out are and were wrong. And so are the points you are trying to make in your idiotic thread on "12-Stop Film." Simply declaring them "wrong" doesn't make it so. If you want to discuss things intelligently, and if you expect any further replies after this one, then discuss things -intelligently-. -snip the trolling- -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet |
#1123
|
|||
|
|||
"Carl" wrote in message
... me wrote: Your lack of respect for me is truly gratifying. Thank You, me Mind you we obviously hit the target didn't we! Safety in numbers? Film, I'm bored, me |
#1124
|
|||
|
|||
"Carl" wrote in message
... me wrote: Your lack of respect for me is truly gratifying. Thank You, me Mind you we obviously hit the target didn't we! Safety in numbers? Film, I'm bored, me |
#1126
|
|||
|
|||
"Tetractys" wrote in news:nOGdnWH-
: Jon Pike wrote: Tetractys wrote: Jon Pike wrote: ... "proof" ... means quantified, measured results. Not necessarily. ... Even mathematical proofs often require years or even decades of discussion and peer review ... ... Roger N. Clark posted a bunch of very wide ranging statements based on his 'tests.' ... he used his claim to having been an editor for a scientific journal for many years as a trump card, rather than actually answer any of the questions I was asking. So, I have no qualms about holding someone using such tactics to such a standard, especially when they're making such wide-ranging claims about totally unsubjective, unartistic matters. You're making two claims here. First, that your insistence on a definition of "proof" stems from the use of argument from authority by your counterpart. I'm not requesting a definition of "proof." I'm requesting that he either admit his opinions are only opinions, or conduct his tests in a scientific manner. If that is true, But, since you're not reading things clearly, it's not true. -snip- Secondly, you are claiming that the discussion revolves around purely quantifiable "unartistic" matters. Isn't that the nature of the debate? No, it's not. The question was about "theoretical equivalent resolution." If other people want to try to take it off topic and talk about "quality" then they're doing simply that, straying off topic. You are assuming your conclusion. Where's your evidence of that? ... I asked earlier for an example of a "science" that doesn't use quantified and non-subjective results. The only suggestion so far has been clearly shown to -not- be science. Although methodical, and probably very useful, it's not science. If you've got another example for me, I'd be glad to hear it. Again, you either misunderstand or misstate the nature of the debate. Nobody is looking for a non-quantified science. You weren't following along. So... your statement there is rather silly. We are exploring the nature of quantifiable data upon a visual perceptive art. Nope. We're not discussing "art" at all. But I will deal with that question in a moment. First, my comments regarding the nature of science did not negate the value of hard data. Conclusions and theory go beyond data into interpretation, the nature of what you glibly call "proof" and even political concerns. One might easily "prove" that A is greater than B. One might not so easily conclude that because of this fact, A has greater import to the topic than B. You're talking about entirely different things now, trying to change the topic, make a point, and then claim you've "beaten" me. That's a straw man argument. If you want to talk about what we're talking about, go right ahead. Please, stay on topic though. -snip invalid examples- Now, if you want an example of a non-quantified science, these exist all around you. Early theories about nuclear fission were unquantified. Early quantum theories were not quantified. The state of cosmology now contains many areas that are unquantifiable. In these cases, theory always leads quantification. In biology, exploration and observation often precedes quantification, and in taxonomy, quantified "proof" is a non-sequitur. Anthropological descriptions of kinship relationships do not require proof at all, but simply delineation of existing conditions. *sigh* Okay, how 'bout this. You outline what you think the scientific method is. Take as many or as few steps as you need. Then we'll have a basis from which to carry this discussion. Because as it is, if you're calling something that's purely exploratory "science," then you either do not understand the scientific method, or you're trying to change it into something it's not. -snip more invalid examples- Thus it is with your definitions of "science" and "proof" that not only shift depending upon to whom you are talking, but are also limited to a very narrow and low level of relevance. You haven't seen what *I* hold as a definition of science. But rest assured, it is 100% accurate. I'm interested in what -you- think the definition of "science" is though, and like I asked just before, what you think the "scientific method" entails. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet |
#1127
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike wrote:
Tetractys wrote: Jon Pike wrote: Tetractys wrote: Jon Pike wrote: ... "proof" ... means quantified, measured results. Not necessarily. ... Even mathematical proofs often require years or even decades of discussion and peer review ... ... Roger N. Clark posted a bunch of very wide ranging statements based on his 'tests.' ... he used his claim to having been an editor for a scientific journal for many years as a trump card, rather than actually answer any of the questions I was asking. So, I have no qualms about holding someone using such tactics to such a standard, especially when they're making such wide-ranging claims about totally unsubjective, unartistic matters. You're making two claims here. First, that your insistence on a definition of "proof" stems from the use of argument from authority by your counterpart. I'm not requesting a definition of "proof." I'm not saying that you are. I said clearly -- clearly -- that you are "insisting" on a definition of proof, that is to say, you are providing one, not requesting one. I'm requesting that he either admit his opinions are only opinions, or conduct his tests in a scientific manner. But that is a false dichotomy -- a fundamental error in logic, discourse and "scientific" method. You insist that your interlocutor "either this or that," while neither "this or that" are relevant. You provide an irrelevant definition of proof, yet demand adherence or surrender. If that is true, But, since you're not reading things clearly, it's not true. Oh, dear. You are giving up, aren't you? -snip- Well, I see that you choose not discussion but pique. That's quite childish, isn't it. Secondly, you are claiming that the discussion revolves around purely quantifiable "unartistic" matters. Isn't that the nature of the debate? No, it's not. The question was about "theoretical equivalent resolution." And how to judge same, correct? The nature of evaluation is the topic under discussion. You prefer numerical evaluation of lab data. Others have provided alternative methods of judgment, which you choose to ignore -- in a rather churlish fashion -- insisting on your own definitions instead, and refusing to enter into a higher level discussion which is far more relevant. If other people want to try to take it off topic and talk about "quality" then they're doing simply that, straying off topic. No, it's the main topic that you choose to ignore -- how to evaluate the numbers you insist on swimming in. You are assuming your conclusion. Where's your evidence of that? It's in the part you snipped and ignored. Here is your statement: "proof" ... means quantified, measured results. And my response was that this is a necessary, but not a sufficient, definition. ... I asked earlier for an example of a "science" that doesn't use quantified and non-subjective results. The only suggestion so far has been clearly shown to -not- be science. Although methodical, and probably very useful, it's not science. If you've got another example for me, I'd be glad to hear it. Again, you either misunderstand or misstate the nature of the debate. Nobody is looking for a non-quantified science. You weren't following along. Oh dear, you are inadequate in these discussions, aren't you? So... your statement there is rather silly. "Silly," am I? Well, Jon, I think I've seen enough of you to judge that you can't hold your own in a serious discussion. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you are simply too light to trifle with. We are exploring the nature of quantifiable data upon a visual perceptive art. Nope. We're not discussing "art" at all. Most of the rest of us are clearly discussing the value of quantifiable measurements when evaluating the esthetic outcome of various forms of image processing. You seem to be lost at the lower technical level of measuring grain size and percentage of lost resolution and so on, which is all well and good, but you don't connect these factors to the photograph itself. This is a bit like talking to a ham radio operator with a gigantic powerful rig, a wonderful 3-element beam antenna ... and nothing to say with all that gear. But I will deal with that question in a moment. First, my comments regarding the nature of science did not negate the value of hard data. Conclusions and theory go beyond data into interpretation, the nature of what you glibly call "proof" and even political concerns. One might easily "prove" that A is greater than B. One might not so easily conclude that because of this fact, A has greater import to the topic than B. You're talking about entirely different things now, trying to change the topic, make a point, and then claim you've "beaten" me. That's a straw man argument. No, Jon, I'm afraid you're lost again, in a swirl of high school debate terms. A straw man is when your opponent creates an irrelevant conclusion from your own words, then knocks that down. I was using an analogy to make my own point clear. That point was brought up by you, Jon, not by me. You posited that hard data equals proof, and I was agreeing with you that hard data is important. Note to Jon -- agreeing with you. I then went a step further to attempt to explain that at a higher level of scientific value, raw data needs interpretation. If you want to talk about what we're talking about, go right ahead. Please, stay on topic though. Making demands on me, are you Jon? It's a shame you haven't the horsepower to keep up. You really are quite limited, aren't you? -snip invalid examples- Can't handle them, can you? Now, if you want an example of a non-quantified science, these exist all around you. Early theories about nuclear fission were unquantified. Early quantum theories were not quantified. The state of cosmology now contains many areas that are unquantifiable. In these cases, theory always leads quantification. In biology, exploration and observation often precedes quantification, and in taxonomy, quantified "proof" is a non-sequitur. Anthropological descriptions of kinship relationships do not require proof at all, but simply delineation of existing conditions. *sigh* Are you lovesick, Jon? Been watching porno again, in the dorm? Okay, how 'bout this. You outline what you think the scientific method is. Take as many or as few steps as you need. Then we'll have a basis from which to carry this discussion. No, I don't follow your instructions. You've made it clear that you believe that what you call "proof" demands -- as a necessary and sufficient condition -- hard data only. I outlined my reasons for disagreeing with that position, in a polite and thorough fashion. You chose to ignore and demean most of my points. So I see no further value in discussing anything with you, Jon, anything at all. Not even the weather. Because as it is, if you're calling something that's purely exploratory "science," then you either do not understand the scientific method, or you're trying to change it into something it's not. Well, I could discuss my background, but we already know that you have a problem with that kind of talk, so let's just leave things as they are. -snip more invalid examples- See, now, Jon, that's why I don't really think it's worth putting more effort into this, because you just are not able to respond. Thus it is with your definitions of "science" and "proof" that not only shift depending upon to whom you are talking, but are also limited to a very narrow and low level of relevance. You haven't seen what *I* hold as a definition of science. But rest assured, it is 100% accurate. Quantifiably so, I am sure. The fact that you would even make a statement about the possibility of scientific method being described in a "100% accurate" manner shows that you don't even understand the nature of the discipline you claim to be expert in. This is like saying, "I can tell you what beauty is, 100% accurately." Anyone even slightly familiar with modern scientific theory knows that there are raging -- raging -- debates about how to evaluate data and how to describe method. In fact, there is even a debate over whether method is even of primal import, or if reliability or justification are more important. Are you familiar with falsifiability, Jon? Conjunctive forks? The feminist interpretation of logic and proof? Do you favor Carnap or Popper? Are you a constructive empiricist? Do you distinguish between real observable entitities and putative observable entities, what Quine called the "unactualized impossibles?" I'm interested in what -you- think the definition of "science" is though, and like I asked just before, what you think the "scientific method" entails. More than you comprehend, and far more than you most likely will ever be able to comprehend. For a start though, I'd say I favor Maxwell's distinction denying the existence of objects unobservable in principle, setting a firm ontological basis for an enhanced naive empiricism, and you? Unfortunately, you seem to be unable to discuss the points I presented -- specifically -- and since you called them irrelevant and snipped them, also claiming that I wanted somehow to defeat you, it seems you have a fear of being "defeated." I wonder, is this insistence on quantification, proof and triumph an indication of some pathology on your part? A need to be hard and penetrating and on top of the argument? If that is the case, then I'd say, Jon, you need to abandon Usenet for a while, get your meat washed, and leave the discussion of photography to those with background, training and mental agility ... beeyotch. |
#1128
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Pike wrote:
Tetractys wrote: Jon Pike wrote: Tetractys wrote: Jon Pike wrote: ... "proof" ... means quantified, measured results. Not necessarily. ... Even mathematical proofs often require years or even decades of discussion and peer review ... ... Roger N. Clark posted a bunch of very wide ranging statements based on his 'tests.' ... he used his claim to having been an editor for a scientific journal for many years as a trump card, rather than actually answer any of the questions I was asking. So, I have no qualms about holding someone using such tactics to such a standard, especially when they're making such wide-ranging claims about totally unsubjective, unartistic matters. You're making two claims here. First, that your insistence on a definition of "proof" stems from the use of argument from authority by your counterpart. I'm not requesting a definition of "proof." I'm not saying that you are. I said clearly -- clearly -- that you are "insisting" on a definition of proof, that is to say, you are providing one, not requesting one. I'm requesting that he either admit his opinions are only opinions, or conduct his tests in a scientific manner. But that is a false dichotomy -- a fundamental error in logic, discourse and "scientific" method. You insist that your interlocutor "either this or that," while neither "this or that" are relevant. You provide an irrelevant definition of proof, yet demand adherence or surrender. If that is true, But, since you're not reading things clearly, it's not true. Oh, dear. You are giving up, aren't you? -snip- Well, I see that you choose not discussion but pique. That's quite childish, isn't it. Secondly, you are claiming that the discussion revolves around purely quantifiable "unartistic" matters. Isn't that the nature of the debate? No, it's not. The question was about "theoretical equivalent resolution." And how to judge same, correct? The nature of evaluation is the topic under discussion. You prefer numerical evaluation of lab data. Others have provided alternative methods of judgment, which you choose to ignore -- in a rather churlish fashion -- insisting on your own definitions instead, and refusing to enter into a higher level discussion which is far more relevant. If other people want to try to take it off topic and talk about "quality" then they're doing simply that, straying off topic. No, it's the main topic that you choose to ignore -- how to evaluate the numbers you insist on swimming in. You are assuming your conclusion. Where's your evidence of that? It's in the part you snipped and ignored. Here is your statement: "proof" ... means quantified, measured results. And my response was that this is a necessary, but not a sufficient, definition. ... I asked earlier for an example of a "science" that doesn't use quantified and non-subjective results. The only suggestion so far has been clearly shown to -not- be science. Although methodical, and probably very useful, it's not science. If you've got another example for me, I'd be glad to hear it. Again, you either misunderstand or misstate the nature of the debate. Nobody is looking for a non-quantified science. You weren't following along. Oh dear, you are inadequate in these discussions, aren't you? So... your statement there is rather silly. "Silly," am I? Well, Jon, I think I've seen enough of you to judge that you can't hold your own in a serious discussion. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you are simply too light to trifle with. We are exploring the nature of quantifiable data upon a visual perceptive art. Nope. We're not discussing "art" at all. Most of the rest of us are clearly discussing the value of quantifiable measurements when evaluating the esthetic outcome of various forms of image processing. You seem to be lost at the lower technical level of measuring grain size and percentage of lost resolution and so on, which is all well and good, but you don't connect these factors to the photograph itself. This is a bit like talking to a ham radio operator with a gigantic powerful rig, a wonderful 3-element beam antenna ... and nothing to say with all that gear. But I will deal with that question in a moment. First, my comments regarding the nature of science did not negate the value of hard data. Conclusions and theory go beyond data into interpretation, the nature of what you glibly call "proof" and even political concerns. One might easily "prove" that A is greater than B. One might not so easily conclude that because of this fact, A has greater import to the topic than B. You're talking about entirely different things now, trying to change the topic, make a point, and then claim you've "beaten" me. That's a straw man argument. No, Jon, I'm afraid you're lost again, in a swirl of high school debate terms. A straw man is when your opponent creates an irrelevant conclusion from your own words, then knocks that down. I was using an analogy to make my own point clear. That point was brought up by you, Jon, not by me. You posited that hard data equals proof, and I was agreeing with you that hard data is important. Note to Jon -- agreeing with you. I then went a step further to attempt to explain that at a higher level of scientific value, raw data needs interpretation. If you want to talk about what we're talking about, go right ahead. Please, stay on topic though. Making demands on me, are you Jon? It's a shame you haven't the horsepower to keep up. You really are quite limited, aren't you? -snip invalid examples- Can't handle them, can you? Now, if you want an example of a non-quantified science, these exist all around you. Early theories about nuclear fission were unquantified. Early quantum theories were not quantified. The state of cosmology now contains many areas that are unquantifiable. In these cases, theory always leads quantification. In biology, exploration and observation often precedes quantification, and in taxonomy, quantified "proof" is a non-sequitur. Anthropological descriptions of kinship relationships do not require proof at all, but simply delineation of existing conditions. *sigh* Are you lovesick, Jon? Been watching porno again, in the dorm? Okay, how 'bout this. You outline what you think the scientific method is. Take as many or as few steps as you need. Then we'll have a basis from which to carry this discussion. No, I don't follow your instructions. You've made it clear that you believe that what you call "proof" demands -- as a necessary and sufficient condition -- hard data only. I outlined my reasons for disagreeing with that position, in a polite and thorough fashion. You chose to ignore and demean most of my points. So I see no further value in discussing anything with you, Jon, anything at all. Not even the weather. Because as it is, if you're calling something that's purely exploratory "science," then you either do not understand the scientific method, or you're trying to change it into something it's not. Well, I could discuss my background, but we already know that you have a problem with that kind of talk, so let's just leave things as they are. -snip more invalid examples- See, now, Jon, that's why I don't really think it's worth putting more effort into this, because you just are not able to respond. Thus it is with your definitions of "science" and "proof" that not only shift depending upon to whom you are talking, but are also limited to a very narrow and low level of relevance. You haven't seen what *I* hold as a definition of science. But rest assured, it is 100% accurate. Quantifiably so, I am sure. The fact that you would even make a statement about the possibility of scientific method being described in a "100% accurate" manner shows that you don't even understand the nature of the discipline you claim to be expert in. This is like saying, "I can tell you what beauty is, 100% accurately." Anyone even slightly familiar with modern scientific theory knows that there are raging -- raging -- debates about how to evaluate data and how to describe method. In fact, there is even a debate over whether method is even of primal import, or if reliability or justification are more important. Are you familiar with falsifiability, Jon? Conjunctive forks? The feminist interpretation of logic and proof? Do you favor Carnap or Popper? Are you a constructive empiricist? Do you distinguish between real observable entitities and putative observable entities, what Quine called the "unactualized impossibles?" I'm interested in what -you- think the definition of "science" is though, and like I asked just before, what you think the "scientific method" entails. More than you comprehend, and far more than you most likely will ever be able to comprehend. For a start though, I'd say I favor Maxwell's distinction denying the existence of objects unobservable in principle, setting a firm ontological basis for an enhanced naive empiricism, and you? Unfortunately, you seem to be unable to discuss the points I presented -- specifically -- and since you called them irrelevant and snipped them, also claiming that I wanted somehow to defeat you, it seems you have a fear of being "defeated." I wonder, is this insistence on quantification, proof and triumph an indication of some pathology on your part? A need to be hard and penetrating and on top of the argument? If that is the case, then I'd say, Jon, you need to abandon Usenet for a while, get your meat washed, and leave the discussion of photography to those with background, training and mental agility ... beeyotch. |
#1129
|
|||
|
|||
"Tetractys" wrote in
: So, after all your rambling, you've shown yourself unable to answer a question as simple as "what do you think the scientific method is?" Go ahead and throw out all the keywords and catch phrases you want, but in the end, if you can't answer such a simple question, you're just trolling. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet |
#1130
|
|||
|
|||
"Tetractys" wrote in
: So, after all your rambling, you've shown yourself unable to answer a question as simple as "what do you think the scientific method is?" Go ahead and throw out all the keywords and catch phrases you want, but in the end, if you can't answer such a simple question, you're just trolling. -- http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I need to transfer my digital files to 35mm slides and negatives output and other film format outputs? | Chris | Digital Photography | 5 | September 25th 04 07:43 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 274 | July 30th 04 12:26 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |