Franz Heymann wrote:

I do not have any failed worms on my farm. They are thrivind and
rotund. They just don't eat fast enough
Seriously, should I perhaps put a trowelful of garden soil in their
hostel now and again?

I don't think that would help. They like a bit of calcified sea weed now and
again though.

--
Excellent day for putting Slinkies on an escalator.

In article ,
jane wrote:

I love that quote. Would have liked to put it at the start of my
thesis but at the time my external examiner wasn't sorted and could
have been a medical physicist or a clued-up medic and I didn't want
the latter to get rebuffed and be more likely to fail me!

Whereas I loathe it intensely. It wouldn't matter if so many boneheaded
physicists didn't believe it - and extrapolate it to mean that they don't
need to learn from other sciences :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
jane wrote:

I love that quote. Would have liked to put it at the start of my
thesis but at the time my external examiner wasn't sorted and could
have been a medical physicist or a clued-up medic and I didn't want
the latter to get rebuffed and be more likely to fail me!

Whereas I loathe it intensely. It wouldn't matter if so many boneheaded
physicists didn't believe it - and extrapolate it to mean that they don't
need to learn from other sciences :-(


Aha! A stamp collector.

--
In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians
called it "Christmas" and went to church; the Jews called it "Hanukka"
and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People
passing each other on the street would say "Merry Christmas!" or "Happy
Hanukka!" or (to the atheists) "Look out for the wall!"
-- Dave Barry, "Christmas Shopping: A Survivor's Guide"

In article ,
bigboard wrote:
Nick Maclaren wrote:

Whereas I loathe it intensely. It wouldn't matter if so many boneheaded
physicists didn't believe it - and extrapolate it to mean that they don't
need to learn from other sciences :-(

Aha! A stamp collector.

Sigh. Carroll would have despaired at you, I despair at you, and for
the same reason. Even accepting Rutherford's definition, I am neither
a physicist nor a stamp collector. Yet I can (with justification)
claim to know more about what constitutes a science than most scientists.
What am I?

[ Actually, I don't claim to be a specialist in that area, but I can
honestly claim what I did. Unfortunately :-( ]


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:01:10 +0000, bigboard
wrote:

~Nick Maclaren wrote:
~
~ In article ,
~ jane wrote:
~
~I love that quote. Would have liked to put it at the start of my
~thesis but at the time my external examiner wasn't sorted and could
~have been a medical physicist or a clued-up medic and I didn't want
~the latter to get rebuffed and be more likely to fail me!
~
~ Whereas I loathe it intensely. It wouldn't matter if so many boneheaded
~ physicists didn't believe it - and extrapolate it to mean that they don't
~ need to learn from other sciences :-(

Nah, we just used it at Uni to wind up the Chemists!
(Best way was to mention that chemistry is a subset of physics. You
got the best effect after they'd had 2-3 pints on a Friday night :-)

The quote never fails to wind up every other scientific discipline. As
all physics students know well :-)

And we must know
If it moves, it's biology
If it reacts (or blows up, or smells) it's chemistry
If it doesn't work, it's physics.

which is a negative comment on school physics lessons! (Though having
had a capacitor blow up in my face once in a physics lesson, I could
alter it a bit).

However!!!
Anyone who is a gardener is an amateur botanist and biologist (and
entomologist!) . If you test soil for pH, and add matter/compounds to
correct soil problems, you're a chemist. And we are all also amateur
meteorologists (at least in Europe!).

Any others? I'm sure I've missed several.

So there we are, every gardener is a scientist. Also an artist (after
all, we paint with flowers and design our plots.) What better hobby
can one have to cover so many disciplines equally?

~Aha! A stamp collector.

Wouldn't you love to know what Rutherford got as a reaction when he
originally said it? I'm sure it got one...


--
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain

Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks!

On 3 Feb 2005 10:11:03 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

~In article ,
~bigboard wrote:
~Nick Maclaren wrote:
~
~ Whereas I loathe it intensely. It wouldn't matter if so many boneheaded
~ physicists didn't believe it - and extrapolate it to mean that they don't
~ need to learn from other sciences :-(
~
~Aha! A stamp collector.
~
~Sigh. Carroll would have despaired at you, I despair at you, and for
~the same reason. Even accepting Rutherford's definition, I am neither
~a physicist nor a stamp collector. Yet I can (with justification)
~claim to know more about what constitutes a science than most scientists.
~What am I?
~
~[ Actually, I don't claim to be a specialist in that area, but I can
~honestly claim what I did. Unfortunately :-( ]
~
Going by your old .sig and email addy, a computer scientist?

Otherwise known as someone who has to deal with whacky computing
requests from every other discipline. And maybe knows a fair bit about
semiconductors, materials science and logical flow.

Either that or a mathematician (you could argue all physics is just
applied maths, which would have shut Rutherford up).


--
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain

Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks!

In article ,
(jane) writes:
| ~
| Going by your old .sig and email addy, a computer scientist?

No way! To quote a founder of modern computing: "Computer science
has nothing to do with computing and isn't a science."

| Otherwise known as someone who has to deal with whacky computing
| requests from every other discipline. And maybe knows a fair bit about
| semiconductors, materials science and logical flow.

The first, but not the second (except for logical flow).

| Either that or a mathematician (you could argue all physics is just
| applied maths, which would have shut Rutherford up).

Yes, precisely. Mathematician, statistician and incidental logician
and mathematical philosopher.

My main point was similar to your previous one in some respects.
Statistics was largely created by biologists, and most physicists
(including all 'hard' sciences here) still have trouble with it,
despite modern physics being increasingly probabilistic. But when
we get onto intrinsically unrepeatable experiments, observations
that are linked acausally and experimenter/observation interactions,
this gets MUCH worse. The experts on those, such as exist, are in
the fields of philosophy and the 'social sciences'.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
bigboard wrote:
Nick Maclaren wrote:

Whereas I loathe it intensely. It wouldn't matter if so many boneheaded
physicists didn't believe it - and extrapolate it to mean that they
don't need to learn from other sciences :-(

Aha! A stamp collector.

Sigh. Carroll would have despaired at you, I despair at you, and for
the same reason. Even accepting Rutherford's definition, I am neither
a physicist nor a stamp collector. Yet I can (with justification)
claim to know more about what constitutes a science than most scientists.
What am I?


Humourless?

[ Actually, I don't claim to be a specialist in that area, but I can
honestly claim what I did. Unfortunately :-( ]



--
All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
-- E. Rutherford

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:

Have you read Charles Dodgson (a.k.a. Lewis Carroll) on the
question
of how many cats it takes to kill rats in a given time?

No, but I look forward to hearing where he wrote that.

"The Monthly Packet", February 1880. It is on pages 140-142 of
The Magic of Lewis Carrol by John Fisher (Penguin), but my copy
was published in 1975.

If all the animals are reasonably spaced, I guess the number killed
per unit time is proportional to the product of the number of cats
and
rats.
{:-))

You've got to the first step.

I'll have to hunt the net for a copy of the book.

Franz

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
(jane) writes:
| ~
| Going by your old .sig and email addy, a computer scientist?

No way! To quote a founder of modern computing: "Computer science
has nothing to do with computing and isn't a science."

| Otherwise known as someone who has to deal with whacky computing
| requests from every other discipline. And maybe knows a fair bit
about
| semiconductors, materials science and logical flow.

The first, but not the second (except for logical flow).

| Either that or a mathematician (you could argue all physics is
just
| applied maths, which would have shut Rutherford up).

Yes, precisely. Mathematician, statistician and incidental logician
and mathematical philosopher.

My main point was similar to your previous one in some respects.
Statistics was largely created by biologists, and most physicists
(including all 'hard' sciences here) still have trouble with it,

That's true, and entirely understandable. Physicists deal, more often
than not, with such a profusion of clean data compared with folk in
the medical and social sciences that in practice they can afford to be
somewhat cavalier with specifying their confidence limits.

despite modern physics being increasingly probabilistic. But when
we get onto intrinsically unrepeatable experiments, observations
that are linked acausally and experimenter/observation interactions,
this gets MUCH worse. The experts on those, such as exist, are in
the fields of philosophy and the 'social sciences'.

Franz

"bigboard" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

I do not have any failed worms on my farm. They are thrivind and
rotund. They just don't eat fast enough
Seriously, should I perhaps put a trowelful of garden soil in
their
hostel now and again?

I don't think that would help. They like a bit of calcified sea weed
now and
again though.

I asked because somebody once said they needed gritty matter to help
masticate (if masticate is the word I want) their food.

But thanks for the tip about calcified seaweed. I'll try it.

Franz

"jane" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:01:10 +0000, bigboard
wrote:

~Nick Maclaren wrote:
~
~ In article ,
~ jane wrote:
~
~I love that quote. Would have liked to put it at the start of my
~thesis but at the time my external examiner wasn't sorted and
could
~have been a medical physicist or a clued-up medic and I didn't
want
~the latter to get rebuffed and be more likely to fail me!
~
~ Whereas I loathe it intensely. It wouldn't matter if so many
boneheaded
~ physicists didn't believe it - and extrapolate it to mean that
they don't
~ need to learn from other sciences :-(

Nah, we just used it at Uni to wind up the Chemists!
(Best way was to mention that chemistry is a subset of physics. You
got the best effect after they'd had 2-3 pints on a Friday night :-)

The quote never fails to wind up every other scientific discipline.
As
all physics students know well :-)

And we must know
If it moves, it's biology
If it reacts (or blows up, or smells) it's chemistry
If it doesn't work, it's physics.

which is a negative comment on school physics lessons! (Though
having
had a capacitor blow up in my face once in a physics lesson, I could
alter it a bit).

However!!!
Anyone who is a gardener is an amateur botanist and biologist (and
entomologist!) . If you test soil for pH, and add matter/compounds
to
correct soil problems, you're a chemist. And we are all also
amateur
meteorologists (at least in Europe!).

Any others? I'm sure I've missed several.

If we select seeds we ar geneticists.

So there we are, every gardener is a scientist. Also an artist
(after
all, we paint with flowers and design our plots.) What better hobby
can one have to cover so many disciplines equally?

~Aha! A stamp collector.

Wouldn't you love to know what Rutherford got as a reaction when he
originally said it? I'm sure it got one...

He was very careful about where and when he said it.

Franz

Franz Heymann wrote:
"jane" wrote in message
[...]
Anyone who is a gardener is an amateur botanist and biologist (and
entomologist!) . If you test soil for pH, and add matter/compounds
to
correct soil problems, you're a chemist. And we are all also
amateur
meteorologists (at least in Europe!).

Any others? I'm sure I've missed several.

If we select seeds we ar geneticists.
[...]

I once had Asian flu, so I'm an epidemiologist.

Mike.

In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:

That's true, and entirely understandable. Physicists deal, more often
than not, with such a profusion of clean data compared with folk in
the medical and social sciences that in practice they can afford to be
somewhat cavalier with specifying their confidence limits.

Well, it WAS true in Rutherford's day, but has become decreasingly
less so both theoretically and practically.

The recent (bad) television program reminded people of Einstein's
difficulty in accepting (and even understanding) some really trivial
concepts because they were non-deterministic and (worse) acausal.
Yes, I do mean that quantum mechanics is conceptually trivial; it
is the consequences and details that are not.

And over the years, I have been unsuccessfully trying to get a
glimmer of understanding of uncertainty into the heads of merely
good physicists and similar, when they have got beyond the point that
simple confidence limit amalysis is enough (yes, the best ones can
handle it.)

Perhaps this has got rather off-group, so I shall stop :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:


I asked because somebody once said they needed gritty matter to help
masticate (if masticate is the word I want) their food.

I think that they were giving you the bird.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.