delta3
13th Jun 2005, 08:55
During many passionate discussion in this forum, communication between participants was at the least difficult. Perhaps this is due to the fact that they were using different simplified rules of thumb in their reasoning.
In science one tries to start from 'universally' valid rules and build models on top of them. These models most of the time consists of coupled subsystems that influence each other in complex ways. Once in a while science discovers that the universality of the rules is questionned. For instance relativity questioned Euclidean models. Compressable flow versus incompressable models. But by adding reasanable restriction science was able to revalidate the rules and models, be it that this process took decades even centuries.
Once the models are build their behaviour can be checked in certain area's of operations or along certain scenario's. This is also part of the validation of the models versus the real world, and concerns variables that can be measured with the present technology. This may lead to a number of rules of thumb that are more easy to remember. These rules of thumb do not have the same universality as the underlying rules. Applying them inappropriately can lead to what we see in the discussions here.
On the other hand these rules of thumb are not only handy, but may be necessary to make things practical and manageable. We are for instance not using a thermodynamical onlime model to manange the engine inflight, but base decisions on some Temperature and pressuer gauges.
These rules of thumb may however not always be appropriate to base scientific reasoning on. So once in a while it may be necessary to take several steps backward, dig deeper and wider before coming up with explanations. This may take a person months or years.
This is my opinion on what (Nick's) myths are about : they should stimulate the digging and one should not expect to find immediate answers, certainly if starting off with rules of thumb.
Delta3
In science one tries to start from 'universally' valid rules and build models on top of them. These models most of the time consists of coupled subsystems that influence each other in complex ways. Once in a while science discovers that the universality of the rules is questionned. For instance relativity questioned Euclidean models. Compressable flow versus incompressable models. But by adding reasanable restriction science was able to revalidate the rules and models, be it that this process took decades even centuries.
Once the models are build their behaviour can be checked in certain area's of operations or along certain scenario's. This is also part of the validation of the models versus the real world, and concerns variables that can be measured with the present technology. This may lead to a number of rules of thumb that are more easy to remember. These rules of thumb do not have the same universality as the underlying rules. Applying them inappropriately can lead to what we see in the discussions here.
On the other hand these rules of thumb are not only handy, but may be necessary to make things practical and manageable. We are for instance not using a thermodynamical onlime model to manange the engine inflight, but base decisions on some Temperature and pressuer gauges.
These rules of thumb may however not always be appropriate to base scientific reasoning on. So once in a while it may be necessary to take several steps backward, dig deeper and wider before coming up with explanations. This may take a person months or years.
This is my opinion on what (Nick's) myths are about : they should stimulate the digging and one should not expect to find immediate answers, certainly if starting off with rules of thumb.
Delta3