Where we going?

Isn't it sad that all of mankind is not progressing and going no where?
Politics runs in circles and is chasing it's tail.



--
LSMFT

I look outside this morning and everything was in 3D!

On Sep 20, 4:55*pm, LSMFT wrote:
Isn't it sad that all of mankind is not progressing and going no where?
Politics runs in circles and is chasing it's tail.

--
LSMFT

I look outside this morning and everything was in 3D!

There is a very good reason for this and much of it has to do with the
dominance of Royal Society empiricism or the 'scientific method' as
most would know it.For those of a certain age who did not grow up with
computers as household items there is a certain sense of something
lost,almost a lost sense of adventure and direction as people are
being indoctrinated into the belief that science is all modelling,
speculation and done in cubicles in research centers,colleges and so
on.

science is all modelling,
speculation and done in cubicles in research centers,colleges and so
on.

Not just science - there was a time that an engineer designed something as
best he/she could and then followed it through the fabrication, test and
utilization cycle to better fine hone futhur designs Engineers weren't
divorced from the shop where things took shape. They understood the basic
relationships between elements of the design and optimized accordingly.
Today engineers pump numbers into a computer and accept the results as
gospel.

True case. An engineer was selecting vacuum pumps that were located around a
chamber. The two models available were 750 liter/minute and 1500 liter per
minute. The computer simulation of the layout gave 900 liters/miinute as the
required pump rate. So they ordered the bigger 1500 liters per minute units.
But a simple examination (or understanding) of the model showed that the
pipe length to the chamber was a direct term in the basic equation. Moving
the pumps closer to tyhe chamber would have made the smaller pumps more than
adequate.

In may cases modeling rituals have replaced basic engineering The computer
programs become the Guru and not just a computational aid.

I've also seen cases were a young engineer talks about something he/she
designed. When you ask how it worked - you get an answer like - I guess it
was OK - they built it and nobody complained. The touch with reality is
getting less and less with time.



Val Kraut

On Sep 20, 10:55*am, oriel36 wrote:

There is a very good reason for this and much of it has to do with the
dominance of Royal Society empiricism or the 'scientific method' as
most would know it.For those of a certain age who did not grow up with
computers as household items there is a certain sense of something
lost,almost a lost sense of adventure and direction as people are
being indoctrinated into the belief that science is all modelling,
speculation and done in cubicles in research centers,colleges and so
on.

If we went back to mediaeval Scholasticism, guided by the supervision
of the Catholic Church, so that we would accept Galileo and
Copernicus, but throw out Newton, we would not be making progress *at
all*.

"Empiricism" means we don't have to depend on some "authority" guiding
our intuition - instead, any idea can be proposed, but it is tested
against Nature itself. This is precisely what has led to the fast
progress in science that allowed computers to become household items.

John Savard

On Sep 21, 12:46*am, "Val Kraut" wrote:
science is all modelling,
speculation and done in cubicles in research centers,colleges and so
on.

Not just science - there was a time that an engineer designed something as
best he/she could and then followed it through the fabrication, test and
utilization cycle to better fine hone futhur designs *Engineers weren't
divorced from the shop where things took shape. They understood the basic
relationships between elements of the design and optimized accordingly.
Today engineers pump numbers into a computer and accept the results as
gospel.

True case. An engineer was selecting vacuum pumps that were located around a
chamber. The two models available were 750 liter/minute and 1500 liter per
minute. The computer simulation of the layout gave 900 liters/miinute as the
required pump rate. So they ordered the bigger 1500 liters per minute units.
But a simple examination (or understanding) of the model showed that the
pipe length to the chamber was a direct term in the basic equation. Moving
the pumps closer to tyhe chamber would have made the smaller pumps more than
adequate.

In may cases modeling rituals have replaced basic engineering *The computer
programs become the Guru and not just a computational aid.

I've also seen cases were a young engineer talks about something he/she
designed. When you ask how it worked - you get an answer like - I guess it
was OK - they built it and nobody complained. The touch with reality is
getting less and less with time.

* * * * * * Val Kraut

In my line of work where it is important to maintain standards of
workmanship (otherwise things blow up !),the best engineers are the
ones who ask why some process or some ad hoc innovation was done one
way instead of some other way,if they like the explanation they allow
the innovation to proceed,if not they will sanction a different
approach.The point is that men who take a wider view and are not
afraid to ask questions tend to have a more balanced approach to
everything else and in some ways the loss of the space program or any
sort of human adventure,it could just as well be a new type of
maritime exploration,requires men who can see the bigger picture but
unfortunately that is rare today.Now it is all highly speculative
guesses about the universe that exist only in mathematical modeling
with the idea of sending satellites into the celestial arena to prove
or disprove a model,no bravery or sense of danger involved and no
sense of human achievement.