Re: [Paddlewise] Pro's and Con's of the "Swede Form"

On Jun 7, 16:51, Bob Myers wrote:
} Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Pro's and Con's of the "Swede Form"
> On Jun 6, 15:26, Nick Schade wrote:
> } Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Pro's and Con's of the "Swede Form"
> > At 8:02 AM -0400 6/4/99, John Winters wrote:
> > 
> > >You know me, "If you can't measure a thing you don't know much about it".
> > >:-)
> > >
> > >Actually I didn't think that up. It comes from Lord Kelvin who said, "If
> > >you can measure that of which you speak, and can express it by number, you
> > >know something of your subject. But if you cannot measure it, your
> > >knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory."
> > 
> > Now we're getting into philosophy of science. If something is not
> > measurable, does it still exist? I can not measure the mass of an electron,
> > yet I am willing to accept that it has a mass. I don't see why the noise
> > produced by a tree falling in the forest is dependant on the sensitivity of
> > my ear.
> 
> But the mass of an electron can and has been measured, and it is useful
> information to those working at that level.
> 
> The noise produced by a tree falling in the forest is not dependent on
> the sensitivity of your ear.  Your *knowledge* of the noise is, however.
>
> The question is not of existence of things you cannot measure; the
> question is of your knowledge of things you cannot or have not measured.

I should really make sure I go back and read the full thread before I
respond to these.

The original discussion was about wave-making resistance of a submarine.

I do agree with John that if something has an effect so small it is
not detectable, that it really makes no difference whether or not it
exists or not - for all practical purposes it does not.

If you've studied or worked with science or engineering to any significant
degree, you know that there are lots of times that we have to make
"simplifying assumptions" - ignoring very small effects to make the problems
tractable.   This is a primary method of both science and engineering.
(You usually do need to show that the effect can be neglected, though.)

It is pointless, and indeed entirely unscientific, to argue about
whether undetectable events are real or not - you just don't know
until you *can* detect it or its absence.  Otherwise, yes, you are
going beyond the bounds of science - science is about what you can
detect and measure.

The 'tree falling' example does not fall into this category - you
can still detect a tree falling even if you're deaf.  It is easy
to infer that it made a noise when it fell.  There are lots of 
detectable events associated with this.  

-- 
Bob Myers                          InteleNet Communications, Inc.
Email: bob_at_InteleNet.net           18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 550
Phone: 949-851-8250 x227           Irvine, CA 92612
Fax:   949-851-1088                http://www.intelenet.net/
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************