Text 16233, 147 rader
Skriven 2005-11-14 23:25:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 16070 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: Fog lights
==================
 >> 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 ...

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

 > Everything else being equal *doesn't* it??

Apparently not. At least I have never seen statistics that say it does.

 >>> 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 ...

 MVDV>> If the "if" is immidiatly followed by a clause that makes the if a
 MVDV>> satisfied condition, the "if" has turned into a truth.
 >
 > I can see that English is not your first language ... [sigh] ...

I can see that honesty is not your prime asset.

 MVDV>>> claim of more - IOW superior - experience.

 >> No such implication is intended.

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

 > Possibly you have feelings of *inferiority* which gives you that idea.

I have no reason whatsoever to have feelings of inferiority .Any perception of
such feelings exist only in your mind and are the result of your inferiority
complex.

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

 MVDV>> You nevertheless made the claim by implication.

 > You can infer anything you wish.  I cannot control that.

I am sure you have at least some control over in how far you allow your
supriority complex to show in your writings.

 >>> My decades of experience as a research scientist

 MVDV>>> In what field?
 >
 >> Mainly vapor-phase, heterogeneous catalysis ...

 MVDV>> Not really related to visual perception is it?

 > Huh?   Are you SERIOUS!?!?

Of course.

 >> how about *your* field?

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

 MVDV>> Nuclear medicine, photovoltaics, ophtalmology.

 > Reminds one of the old saying, "Jack of all trades, master of
 > none" ... heh heh heh ...

Yeah right. Reminds me of the saying about the specialist: Knows everything
about nothing.  ;-)

 > All of my degrees are in chemistry and chemistry is an
 > extremely wide field.

A subfield of physics nonetheless.

 >>> 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??

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

 > You certainly *weren't* ... heh heh heh ... no offense, of course ..

None taken as "common sense" is not a generally accepted method of arriving at
the truth by the scintific community.

 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.

 MVDV>> Denial is useless Frank, you wrote the following on the 10th of
 MVDV>> 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.

 > You object to that, assuming everything else is equal???

As I said: "common sense" is not a method in general acceptance by the
scientific community. Well, it used to be, but it is not any more. Not since we
eneterd the world of quantum mechanics.

 >>> 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.

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

 > Never ... you seem to be making a lot of totally unwarranted
 > inferences.

You seem to be twisting to get out of the corner you painted yourself into.

 >> Furthermore I *never* make claims which I cannot support.

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

 > Huh?  One cannot be aware of something which doesn't exist!

True.

Unawareness however is not proof of non existence.

Cheers, Michiel

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