Re: Talking vs Doing

[P3D Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 
>From: P3D John W Roberts writes:
>
>
>>Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997
>>From: P3D Larry Berlin  <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Re: Talking vs Doing
>.......................
>>******  This includes NASA staff astronomers who have the mistaken attitude
>>that existing space images, especially a few stereo moon images, are more
>>scientifically accurate in their current extremely distorted state, than
>>they would be if the distortions were corrected by hand manipulation.
>........................
>There seems to be a lot missing from this description. 

*****  Of course, names are witheld as well as other parts of the story not
bearing on the comment. It wasn't meant as a generalization as it is taken
from a real conversation that I don't take to be universally representative
of the entire classification of scientists. It's just an example.

>Did you seriously
>propose to the scientists that they modify the *original data*???

*****  No, I don't believe that I indicated any such thing about original
data. I did comment on the already processed presentation which was
seriously flawed, derived from the original data with it's own set of
occasional flaws. The image was grossly misrepresentative of physical
reality and misrepresents the available data as a result. It was the
byproduct of some other level of approximation that didn't take the total
data into consideration. A flawed method was applied to the data to derive
this image. It could be repaired essentially by reversing the distortions.
Or better yet, improving the process that was used originally, but I am
assuming that would require quite a bit more work. Much easier to correct
the output based on known input parameters. This wouldn't change original
data at all. It would be more faithful to the data.

....................
>Bear in mind that it's "humans with an active mind" that put the canals on
>Mars, the numerous reports of bridges, cities, and giant spaceships on the
>moon (now almost forgotten by the public), and some would say the "face"
>on Mars. The scientific community has been burned many, many times by
>"artistic correction" of original data, so I don't blame them for being
>cautious.

*****  Caution has nothing to do with the instance described. It's not
caution that declares the kitchen chair to be in fact an elephant. The term
*humans with an active mind* was my own paraphrasing of my part in a long
ago conversation. It's an overgeneralization of anyone that is conscious and
cognitive to a reasonable and common degree. Perhaps no more so than is
required to drive a car, maybe less than that.

>
>For the specific case you mentioned, wouldn't the automatic application of
>a reverse (distortion) transform function be more accurate than working
>by hand?

******  No, because the errors are many and not all in the same direction
nor the same amount. The image now is as typical of many space images, made
up of thousands of other images. It would take a person applying differing
degrees of reverse distortion according to the need in each part of the
total image. 

>.....( I said) ....................
>>*****  And when their scientific imagery suffers as a consequence of their
>>misplaced abhorence of artistic endeavor (interpreted to mean any effort
>>involving one's own mind and hands), it's truly very sad. .........
>
>Hey - you've been peeking at my overhead transparencies. :-). But really,
>I could make them more artistic if I had 20 times as long to do them.
>Usually the best I can manage is to try to make the ideas as clear and
>compelling as I can with limited custom artwork. If I throw in a PowerPoint
>clip art of a striped bass and the caption "Fishing for answers?", would
>that make my technical presentation more artistic? :-)
>

You know I'm not poking fun at your presentation, of which I have no
knowledge and have never seen. I've seen simple chalk illustrations that are
more artistic than some of the most elaborate power point presentations.
I've seen beautiful artistic work from engineers and scientists. I've seen
lousy art work from artists too. We tend to place too much value in the job
classification instead of the abilities of each person. Jobs come and go and
have many sides to them. People are more complex and can transcend such
artificial barriers as a type of job or occupy more than one classification.
I consider Buckminster Fuller to have extensive artistic as well as
scientific and engineering abilities. Generalizations can still be
appropriately illustrative. :-)

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


------------------------------