Re: Motion P1788/M0013.04 - Comparisons
> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:10:38 +0200
> From: Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: Nate Hayes <nh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Motion P1788/M0013.04 - Comparisons
>
> Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
> >
> > On 9/23/2010 09:48, Arnold Neumaier wrote:
> >>
> >> A standard should not require new research but take stock of what
> >> exists already in a good state, and select from that.
> >>
> >
> > Although I don't necessarily disagree with the above general
> > statement, I do think a standard should take research into account
> > in the sense that it doesn't inhibit good research or exploration
> > of possibly better alternatives.
>
> What I had intended to express with my statement was that it is not
> good that the standardization process is made dependent on research
> not yet done but only vaguely promised.
>
> Anyway, before the standard is accepted, it has no power,
> and therefore cannot inhibit research.
>
> I am not against more research on this but against promoting ideas
> that compromise clear conceptual notions for the sake of
> questionable net benefits.
Arnold,
Without expressing an opinion on the issue in question,
I would rather the criticisms of it be based on its
merits than its pedigree.
I grant that history contributes to that. An idea that
has been shown to be bad in the past can be expected to
still be bad for the same reasons. And an idea that is
well justified by peer reviewed papers can be said to
have merit. (And we'd probably already be doing it.)
But a new idea is not bad merely because it is new.
If it is half baked, then you can say that it falls
short in this area & why. If it has considerable costs
with dubious benefits, that can also be explained.
But it is not bad merely because you suspect it to be
so.
There was a supreme court decision once about a man who
was constantly being arrested by the police because they
thought that he 'looked suspicious'. The court ruled
that it is not sufficient to look suspicious. You must
be suspected *OF* something. Something specific.
State your suspicians & let the idea defend them.
It will stand or fall according to its merits.
End of criticism. :-)
Dan
P.S. - The suspicious guy in question came to be known
as the San Diego Walker. He was suspicious because he
was a young black man with dredlocks who looked &
dressed like a pimp & liked to take long walks in nice
neighborhoods. (Naturally. Who wants to walk in a
ghetto. :-) He was actually a local college professor.