I am getting so many of Neil's tests sent me
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
5
548
·Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
You need another hobby DLS. You are investing too much emotionally in this website.
Joined
·
678 Posts
Set the hook Gary.
Joined
·
9,941 Posts
Gary, that's the thing about science; new, better data supplants the old. Akin to the old thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad from grade-school. There's no point in defending explanations for which subsequent data has allowed more comprehensive interpretations. That's why every proposition in science ends with an unstated "so far."
There was a great example just a couple of weeks ago in the "calculating POI" thread you started. I made a mistake there based not on poor information, but rather on careless thinking. Realizing my error, I thought the problem deserved some serious attention and so am putting together one of my booklets to cover the subject in the detail it deserves. Watch for it; I'm sure you will like it!
Since it will need some drawings, I am finally learning Adobe Illustrator from the online trainer Lynda.com, at least to extent that I'll be able to do its equivalent of finger painting. That's why I haven't been properly weeding my plot onTS.com recently, but I hope you will excuse the inattention.
A couple of supplementary points.
1. The sequence I outlined in the first paragraph is far more an ideal than the reality. It's a publicist's version of the way in which science is said to be "self-correcting." I interpret the results of one of my experiments as such-and-such and the next guy comes along and does it better and comes up with a different account that makes more sense. Theoretically, those in my camp should shake his hand, thank him for his contribution, and go out to promote his new, better explanation.
What often happens is that the first camp, the ones committed to the first idea, just dig in and become more committed, more shrill than they were before. Look at the cold-fusion guys; read the bizarre magazine "Alternative Energy." OK, someone is still making money on it so why quit I suppose, but there is a time, it seems to me . . .
2. Pointing out errors in scientific accounts is not thought of as "bashing." It's just part of the contract we agreed to when we signed on. We also implicitly agreed to follow rules of evidence, logic, proof, truth, accuracy, and all the rest that comes along with establishing the credentials to make "scientific" pronouncements.
3. Not all changes are in the right direction. A promising new avenue may turn out to be a dead end or a one off. Sometimes you were right in the first place; sometimes you should have stuck to your guns.
4. Now and then errors are just errors. One of my graphs which has been (mostly) privately circulated refers to a Beretta Optima Extra-full choke, and goes further to describe it as "0.040" constriction." My friend Mike L. pointed out that there never has been any such choke and he's right. I went back to check the photographs and they show paper patterns labeled "Briley X-Full 0.040." I still haven't corrected the graph and I'm going to have to since it may show up here and a lot of people who see it aren't going to like what it says so I have to make it bulletproof.
What all that means, Gary, is that you are entirely free to re-post here whatever has been sent you. I won't be embarrassed in the slightest by finding that I have been inconsistent, have changed my story. If I didn't I wouldn't be learning anything. My posts would be a waste of time for readers if they didn't show progress, look at things a new way.
It's also possible that the people sending them to you did not understand them. I would welcome the chance to clear up their questions. Ideally of course, they would post their reservations here in public under their own names since that's the way science does it, but TS.com is an alternative universe in many ways and so we put up with alternative standards. So post them yourself. I think it will be fun.
Yours in Sport,
Neil
There was a great example just a couple of weeks ago in the "calculating POI" thread you started. I made a mistake there based not on poor information, but rather on careless thinking. Realizing my error, I thought the problem deserved some serious attention and so am putting together one of my booklets to cover the subject in the detail it deserves. Watch for it; I'm sure you will like it!
Since it will need some drawings, I am finally learning Adobe Illustrator from the online trainer Lynda.com, at least to extent that I'll be able to do its equivalent of finger painting. That's why I haven't been properly weeding my plot onTS.com recently, but I hope you will excuse the inattention.
A couple of supplementary points.
1. The sequence I outlined in the first paragraph is far more an ideal than the reality. It's a publicist's version of the way in which science is said to be "self-correcting." I interpret the results of one of my experiments as such-and-such and the next guy comes along and does it better and comes up with a different account that makes more sense. Theoretically, those in my camp should shake his hand, thank him for his contribution, and go out to promote his new, better explanation.
What often happens is that the first camp, the ones committed to the first idea, just dig in and become more committed, more shrill than they were before. Look at the cold-fusion guys; read the bizarre magazine "Alternative Energy." OK, someone is still making money on it so why quit I suppose, but there is a time, it seems to me . . .
2. Pointing out errors in scientific accounts is not thought of as "bashing." It's just part of the contract we agreed to when we signed on. We also implicitly agreed to follow rules of evidence, logic, proof, truth, accuracy, and all the rest that comes along with establishing the credentials to make "scientific" pronouncements.
3. Not all changes are in the right direction. A promising new avenue may turn out to be a dead end or a one off. Sometimes you were right in the first place; sometimes you should have stuck to your guns.
4. Now and then errors are just errors. One of my graphs which has been (mostly) privately circulated refers to a Beretta Optima Extra-full choke, and goes further to describe it as "0.040" constriction." My friend Mike L. pointed out that there never has been any such choke and he's right. I went back to check the photographs and they show paper patterns labeled "Briley X-Full 0.040." I still haven't corrected the graph and I'm going to have to since it may show up here and a lot of people who see it aren't going to like what it says so I have to make it bulletproof.
What all that means, Gary, is that you are entirely free to re-post here whatever has been sent you. I won't be embarrassed in the slightest by finding that I have been inconsistent, have changed my story. If I didn't I wouldn't be learning anything. My posts would be a waste of time for readers if they didn't show progress, look at things a new way.
It's also possible that the people sending them to you did not understand them. I would welcome the chance to clear up their questions. Ideally of course, they would post their reservations here in public under their own names since that's the way science does it, but TS.com is an alternative universe in many ways and so we put up with alternative standards. So post them yourself. I think it will be fun.
Yours in Sport,
Neil
Joined
·
299 Posts
Neil,
As a fellow man of science, I love your posts, graphs and explanations. Methods and techniques evolve, therefore data and conclusions must evolve too. I have always noted you to be very clear when new data you are presenting varies from past testing and your attempts to explain such variances are another aspect of your posts I enjoy.
Keep up the great work and thanks,
Dan
As a fellow man of science, I love your posts, graphs and explanations. Methods and techniques evolve, therefore data and conclusions must evolve too. I have always noted you to be very clear when new data you are presenting varies from past testing and your attempts to explain such variances are another aspect of your posts I enjoy.
Keep up the great work and thanks,
Dan
Joined
·
276 Posts
Great professional and logical response post Neil.
Joined
·
25,277 Posts
Even more important Chip, he should be using a 12ga, not subgauge.
Joined
·
844 Posts
Mikkee.......way too funny.
Still rolling on the floor with my iPad as I type this.
NO hit on Dr. Longshot however.
Ernie ....in AZ
Still rolling on the floor with my iPad as I type this.
NO hit on Dr. Longshot however.
Ernie ....in AZ
Joined
·
3,116 Posts
Chip, you made me burst out laughing!!!
And Jack, lighten to hell up, Mr. Moderator-in-waiting
And Jack, lighten to hell up, Mr. Moderator-in-waiting
Joined
·
10,782 Posts
pueblo, that's absolutely hilarious!!! I love it!!
HAP
HAP
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!