[rollei_list] Re: Theory vs. Practice (was: Austin has Unsubscribed)
- From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:40:01 -0400
On Tuesday, April 19, 2005, at 07:20 PM, Richard Knoppow wrote:
> [...] in science theory is tested by experiment, the theory stands or
> falls by the results of the experimental evidence. So, a theory MUST
> work in practice or it is invalid. A theory is established by such
> experimental evidence, where it _appears_ to fail in practice the
> practice involves some missed factor.
To prove a theory wrong, the experiment must be performed in a way that
actually tests the theory which is to be proved wrong, and not some
OTHER theory altogether!
Case in point: the argument about digital vs. film. The maximum number
of different objects a digital camera can photograph is obviously the
megapixel count - so an 8 MP digital cannot POSSIBLY photograph all of
9 million different objects! OTOH film is limited by its grain size, so
if there are 10 million grains side-by-side on a film it CAN obviously
photograph 10 million different objects.
But those who say "a photo captured digitally with a modern digital
camera is sharper than one captured on film" don't take the time to
actually COUNT the number of objects photographed, do they now. They
decide the matter by what looks "sharp" to their eyes. That's testing
something entirely DIFFERENT from the resolution of a digital camera.
Cheers.
Other related posts:
- » [rollei_list] Re: Theory vs. Practice (was: Austin has Unsubscribed)
