Touche!
I've only paged through some of the books Roger and Frances Schultz have
co-written. For the most part they appear to lean toward ease of digestion
and away from the kind of data found in other books.
OTOH, why should a table of numbers be more persuasive than a considered
summary conclusion based on objective testing? Granted, it *does* tend to
make for convincing arguments. But an informed opinion takes less time to
read, can be just as illuminating and generally is far more entertaining.
Lex
===
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Disraeli (1804-81)
==================
From: Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] Hoya lens?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:47:50 -0700
Lex writes:
<< Roger Hicks, who tests gear and writes about it for a living
(Shutterbug mag and many books), says he's never noticed a nickel's
worth of difference between the major brands of filters. >>
To which I say: "Show me the data." I may not have enjoyed Philosophy
of Science as a course, but I do remember that conclusions without
reproducable data are nothing more than everyday opinion.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|