Re: Who's Burden of Proof? [from the list manager]

Getting a little out of hand here folks.

Let's watch the ad hominems and keep the discourse courteous.

TG

>
>glennmorton@entouch.net wrote:
>
>>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>>From: Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>>Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:20:57 -0500
>>>> Or a process called simulated annealing, which is used in
>>>>geophysics to design models of the subsurface. These things use
>>>>chance based upon random number generators to mutate the model
>>>>looking for a better fit to the real data. This type of
>>>>procedure is quite widespread and shows that designers do use
>>>>chance.
>>>
>>>Sounds like a purely theoretical construct to me. (i.e. "a
>>>specious fabrication")
>>>
>>>Designers do NOT use chance, Glenn --- other than to filter out
>>>what is wanted from what is not.
>>>
>>>You geologists have to live with what exists in the ground. We
>>>modern engineers have a greater choice in our occupations...
>>>
>>>So live with it, Glenn!
>>
>>THis shows that blind faith and burying one's head in the sand can
>>lead to any theologically acceptable conclusion. I am always amazed
>>at how certain people are of fields of endeavour they haven't ever
>>studied or worked in.
>>
>>Before you speak about things of which you know nothing, you should
>>understand the process used in my industry to take seismic data,
>>turn it into rock properties so that we can then build reservoir
>>models and find oil that has been left behind. We spend millions
>>on such things as this, all using chance to find the solution, and
>>we do it because it works and we make money off of it. If it
>>didn't work at designing our reservoir models, we wouldn't do it
>>because that would be stupid. Oil men aren't stupid.
>>
>You do give us rise to some doubts on occasion.., Glenn :).
>
>So you live in a chancy field of endeavor!! It does not follow that
>"design" itself is is a "chance" process!
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>You are the one who needs to live with it. But go back to assuming
>>your mythical ostrich-like position.
>>
>
>And you, Glenn Morton, should become more educated in the processes
>followed by design engineers (The ones who developed the tools that
>you use!!). To brazenly proclaim that design engineers use "chance"
>in design is the absolute height of stupidity! If you expect people
>to believe that stuff that you publish, then you will have to become
>much far-far-far more astute about the design process!!
>
>Now, I may not be a geologist, but I currently know about 30 - 40 dB
>more than you will ever know about the design process of the tools
>used by others -- including the softer sciences like yours.!!
>
>Stick to digging wells (using chance) and analyze what others have
>done before you. Other thinking is clearly beyond the scope of your
>current knowledge -- which is obviously outdated ;).
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Walt
>
>P. S.
>
>MIT has FREE courses on line for you to get better educated at:
>
><http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html>http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html !!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>===================================
>Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
>In any consistent theory, there must
>exist true but not provable statements.
>(Godel's Theorem)
>
>You can only find the truth with logic
>If you have already found the truth
>without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
>===================================
>

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801