Text 16060, 135 rader
Skriven 2005-11-13 15:37:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 15841 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: Fog lights
==================
 MVDV>>>> The same applies ABS btw.
 >
 >>> I'm aware of that.  Statistics show that people with ABS tend
 >>> to tailgate more, thus get into more accidents.

 MVDV>> Right. So you acknowledge that contrary to common sense, improved
 MVDV>> braking does not automatically result in improved road safety. Thank
 MVDV>> you.

 > You're welcome ... BTW the word "automatically" is one I'd not
 > apply to improved road safety of *any* kind.  Drivers *still*
 > have to use common sense ...

Yet you made the jump from improved visibility to improved road safety without
any further ado. You "automatically" assumed that the one implies the other.

 >> I don't claim "superior" experience -- only a lot *of* it.

 MVDV>> Yes you do. You claimed that if I had a lot of exprerience under
 MVDV>> different conditions, like you have:

 > The "if" applies ...

If the "if" is immidiatly followed by a clause that makes the if a satisfied
condition, the "if" has turned into a truth.

 >> you'd know better ...

And there it is. You would not write "you would" if you didn't think I didn't.

 MVDV>> Obviously you do not think I know better and so there is an implied
 MVDV>> claim of more - IOW superior - experience.

 > No such implication is intended.

I have some difficulty believing that. Normally I give people the benefit of
the doubt but in your case this is difficult as you have shown symptoms of a
suporiority compls on too many occasions.

 > I may have superior experience but I don't know that hence do not
 > claim it as a certainty.

You nevertheless made the claim by implication.

 >>> In this case common sense is enough to show that the more easily
 >>> one spots another car the less likely one is going to run into
 >>> that car.

 MVDV>>> My experience as a scientist tells me that common sense ever
 MVDV>>> so often does not provide the correct answer. Many things in
 MVDV>>> nature go against common sense.

 >> My decades of experience as a research scientist

 MVDV>> In what field?

 > Mainly vapor-phase, heterogeneous catalysis ...

Not really related to visual perception is it?

 > how about *your* field?

I am not a one trick pony. I have a degree in physics and astronomy and I have
worked as a research scientist in various fields:

Nuclear medicine, photovoltaics, ophtalmology.

 >> tells me that my common sense is often correct.  Not always, but usually.

 MVDV>> If you were what you claim you'd know that being often
 MVDV>> correct is no guarantee for being correct in a specific case.

 > Of course ... that applies to *you* also ... so??

I was not thge one using common sense as part of my argument.

 MVDV>>> The only way to get the correct answer is to forget common
 MVDV>>> sense and just do the measurements.
 >
 >> I combine the two.

 MVDV>> You did not in this case: "comon sense is enough" you wrote.

 > I've deleted nothing yet I don't see that anywhere here.

Denial is useless Frank, you wrote the following on the 10th of November 00:00.
MSGID: 1:123/140 84e46780:

FS> In this case common sense is enough to show that the more
FS> easily one spots another car the less likely one is going
FS> to run into that car.

 >> Do you seriously think you can see an unlighted object moving
 >> toward you as easily as you can see a lighted one?

 MVDV>> You are twisting my words. What I wrote was that the statistics
 MVDV>> do not support the theory that in broad daylight and clear
 MVDV>> weather, carrying lights improves road safety.

 > No, I'm *not* twisting your words.

At least you ar trying to put words into my mouth.

  > I'm merely trying to get the idea across to you that *despite*
  > the statistics -- which can be used to support almost anything
  > -- it's easier to spot a lighted  object than an unlighted one.

I am not arguing against that.

 MVDV>> Visibility of oncoming vehicles may improve, but as with
 MVDV>> improved braking by ABS, that does not automatically
 MVDV>> result in improved road safety.

 > Again, the word "automatically" is involved in *your* statement.

So?

 MVDV>> Yes, interesting that you who claims to be a scientist reverts to the
 MVDV>> tactic of twisting my words to make your point.

 > Where did I "twist" your words.

See above: you tried to make it look like as if I had said unlighted object can
be seen as easy as a lighted one. Which I did not.

 > I merely expanded on them.
 > Furthermore I *never* make claims which I cannot support.

Ha! That would be funny if the sad thing wasn't that you do it all the time,
apparently without being aware of it.

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.nodelist.org (2:280/5555)