Le vendredi 30 Novembre 2007 09:21, iwert bernakiewicz a écrit :
> Interesting?
> clearly a case of someone who thinks everything is solveable through
> mathematics. I used the empiric method and can now "feel" where the focus
> has to be set from experience. He has to take his pocket calculator out!
> Sorry, not my kind of sauce. Clearly a case of an academic with no other
> problems than to less recognition and overcompensation. (no harm intented
> to the academics amongst us, I am one myself for the moment, and really
> strugling with the tradition "why explains things simply if you can make it
> difficult")
I probably should not answer ; I've read the guy's paper cursively, because I
avoid mathematics as much as anyone else (bad highschool memories, was doing
my major in mathematics at the time and hated every minute of it - stupid
french schooling system where math is a quasi prerequisite to any other
academic path). You can guess I'm no fan of pocket calculators when shooting
outside. But going as far as simply calling this work 'uninteresting' is
certainly not fair. As I understand it, the guy assumed the DOF might be
wider than expected, and took the pain to actually not only prove it, but
also quantify it. That is truly the essence of science, academic or not.
But what really itch me is what you call the tradition of obfuscating
explanations. That, I can't agree with. Most academics I know, myself
included (when I was lecturing at the University), would happily draw roughly
the 'big picture' of what's going on, to help students grab the main
concepts. But at a certain point, you just can't hide complexity anymore. Not
everything is clearcut, and to go on, sometimes, you've got to tinker with
details. Science is really seldom made of looking hard for something, taking
a bath and getting out naked shouting 'eureka'. Most of the time, it's more
like 'hey Bob, look at that, now, that's funny, isn't it ?'. And to be able
to see past the 'funny' part, comes the deep understanding of why something
else was to be expected. Science 'by the seat of the pants' leads to flat
earth, orbiting Sun, heavy masses falling faster than light ones, to name
only a few. Endlessly repeating the same 'good enough' procedures is
technics. It's not the same thing. It's useful when keeping a curious eye for
potentialy better solutions, but debilitating when refusing progress in the
name of traditions.
So, to make a short conclusion, no, I won't put a calculator in my bag. But
I'm happy to know that I can do things I might not have tried myself, and I
thank the author for the pain he took to explain me why, and to have shown me
the limits too.
--
Manuel Viet
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|