BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="brocknroller" data-source="post: 1760618" data-attributes="member: 665">Kevin, I will have to remember in the future that you tend to confuse parody with condescension. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />For a good example of condescension read Ron H's post #25 on the Nikon Premier LX Japan leaded glass? thread:I quote: "We are supposed to know a little bit about basic optics here. If you don't believe the numbers in the glass tables describe the passage of light through the material, but that there are angels or devils at work in addition, you have not quite arrived. Let's get past superstition, is all I'm saying."I don't think Ron meant to be condescending, he's a good guy, and I will address his post with a thoughtful reply on the original thread when I get the chance (busy week ahead), I just saw it (when I get busy writing about the "angels and devils" of business, I don't read BF for a day or two, and threads I had been following drop to the bottom and I lose track of them). Actually, I thought my remarks above were deferential, admitting that measurement plays a critical role in optics (tweak a parameter like pincushion, and the entire view of the world changes). No math = no optics. My overarching point on this thread and others has been that the emphasis on measurement when taken to the extreme can become condescension (how ironic!). Your quote from Lord Kelvin exemplifies that perfectly, particularly the last part: "All that remains is more and more precise measurement."I'm not sure if that's why you think he was arrogant, but if so, then the "two cultures" are finally in agreement. Perhaps, he was just naive. When the universe was thought to be purely mechanistic, you can understand how someone would come to such a conclusion. Or perhaps being knighted by Queen Victoria might have swoll3n his head, but whatever the case, I certainly hope you wouldn't call him a chucklehead. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification