Text 16282, 185 rader
Skriven 2005-11-15 07:48:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av MICHIEL VAN DER VLIST
Ärende: Fog lights
==================
-=> Quoting Michiel Van Der Vlist to Frank Scheidt <=-

 >> 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??

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

Kinda looks like you'd better become better competent in reading 
statistics, doesn't it!

 >>> 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] ...

 MVDV> I can see that honesty is not your prime asset.

Right!   It's honest-intelligence which is probably first ...

 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.

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

'scuse my snicker ... [silent snicker] ...
 
 >> 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.

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

Consider this:  True superiority is *not* merely a "superiority 
complex" ...
 
 >>> 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!?!?

 MVDV> Of course.

Wow!  For you to *admit* such lack of knowledge is impressive!
 
 >> 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 ...

 MVDV> Yeah right. Reminds me of the saying about the specialist: Knows
 MVDV> everything about nothing.  ;-)
 
I've heard that one.  While I *was* a specialist in the US Army 
during WWII I was more a generalist during my three-decade career 
in chemical research.  I worked in many areas, the main one of 
which was vapor-phase heterogeneous catalysis ...

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

 MVDV> A subfield of physics nonetheless.

Wow!  *Another* strange idea on your part.  Chemistry impacts on 
*all* scientific fields.  As for physics, we tend to think of 
that as mainly weightless strings and frictionless pulleys ... 
heh heh heh ...

 >>> 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 ..

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

You apparently know little or nothing of scientific research ...

 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???

 MVDV> As I said: "common sense" is not a method in general acceptance by the
 MVDV> scientific community. Well, it used to be, but it is not any more. Not
 MVDV> since we eneterd the world of quantum mechanics.
 
You don't consider quantum mechanics to include common sense?  
Interesting ...

 >>> 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.

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

You must have read my conversation with another WRT your ability 
as a painter ... heh heh heh ... BTW, has the paint dried yet??
Hey!  Maybe I can help, knowing a bit about paint chemistry.

 >> 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!

 MVDV> True.

 MVDV> Unawareness however is not proof of non existence.

Good to see you know that ...

... Cynic:  Someone who smells the flowers and looks for the casket.

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)