[time-nuts] A philosophy of science view on the tight pll discussion

[Didier Juges]

---- WarrenS <warrensjmail-one at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> Ulrich posted a bunch of logic stuff, some of which I did not understand.
> 
> but  I do think he missed the main point
> 

I personally think Warren missed the point entirely, but it's just my opinion. This statement is a good summary of what has been going on. You cannot dismiss something that you do not understand, yet that's what you have been trying to do for a long time now.

Warren, you probably would be a more effective communicator if you did not see everything as a personal attack. Unfortunately, the value of your messages is lost in pointless arguments about who is right.

It is too bad that a lot of good information has to be dug up through mountains of "less valuable stuff".

Bruce has been trying to help you and you dismissed him. You were convinced from the first second that your method was the best there was, and absolutely refused to admit that it could be improved in any way, and you could not even be bothered to explain the limits of that method. Now, Ulrich tries to help you and you dismiss him the same way.

If I recall correctly, the argument started because Bruce faulted you for stating that your method was "good enough" without characterizing the limits of that statement, not because Bruce criticized the method by itself. Then you quickly refused to accept that there might be merit to such characterization.

Every method has limitations. If you do not know the limits, how do you know an experiment is within the capabilities of that method? Simply achieving the same results (under some conditions) as an expensive piece of test equipment only has anecdotal value if you do not know the limits. More testing certainly improves the confidence, but it is not a replacement for a sound analysis of the errors. Otherwise, it is nothing more than an interesting gadget.

I think I have heard enough about the tight PLL method for a while, and I am ready for another thread.

Didier