Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: non-traditional

I wrote:

> Generally, I think it is unscientific to argue over what is
> "traditional" or not. It reminds me of fundamentalist
> religion, not science.

At 11:02 AM 3/15/01 -0600, RAUBER, JOEL wrote:

I think the context of this kind of comment "as traditionally done" is not a
dogmatic statement, but rather a short hand way of saying "as is usually
presented in many classes and textbooks . . ."


I think JR is describing how things *should* be. Alas the real world can
sometimes be quite dogmatic about its classes and textbooks.

I've had plenty of run-ins with people who say things like:
-- You can't possibly measure a voltage more accurately than the Standard
Quantum Limit [sqrt(hbar)] because five different textbooks say it can't be
done.
-- You can't possibly train a neural network to produce P(y|x) because
everybody knows it produces P(x|y).
-- You can't possibly have built a CMOS logic circuit that dissipates
less than 1/2 C V^2 per gate per operation, because all the textbooks say
it can't be done.
-- You must be crazy to suggest that after rolling out of a severe spiral
dive, a pilot should be prepared to push on the yoke, because it says right
here in the official FAA _Flight Training Handbook_ that the correct
procedure is to *pull* on the yoke.

Sometimes people who don't know me very well will try to win an argument by
complaining that my work is non-traditional. Hee,
hee. Non-traditional?!?! They get all confused when I take it as a
compliment.