TAKO. INTERNET SEIT 1996.
Olympus-OM

Re: [OM] New additions to the Living History Farm

Subject: Re: [OM] New additions to the Living History Farm
From: Wayne Shumaker <om3ti@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 11:24:38 -0700
At 9/7/2020 10:49 AM, AG-AK wrote:
>> I have to admit, it does lead to a bit of intellectual laziness -- on a
>> relevant topic, I can pretty easily find out what the rest of you have
>> thought about it, without me having to do extensive research other than
>> scanning prior posts.
>
>I will admit to doing that once in a while with my work, but there is
>really no substitute for learning lessons your own way.
>
>I think the confusions come in when we take into account three
>different types of evidence: Anecdotal Evidence, Scientific Evidence,
>Empirical Evidence.
>
>The Internets are full of anecdotal evidence masquerading as something
>greater. Is Anecdotal Evidence a false evidence? Not necessarily, but
>it lacks context and intellectual consideration.
>
>Scientific Evidence is all about what can be measured. It's 100% fact
>base, but it also lacks context and intellectual consideration.
>Picking a lens based solely on MTF charts is an example of where we
>are at today with these new lenses that are extremely sharp, but may
>be unusable for the majority of applications.
>
>Empirical Evidence is the tricky one, because it is primarily about
>context and intellectual consideration, but the conclusions are
>occasionally opposite of the other two evidences. For example,
>"micro-contrast" is something that really isn't so much measured as it
>is observed. (we CAN measure certain traits that contribute to it, but
>I don't think we can measure it directly). Same with bokeh. Is it
>mathematically calculated or is it observed and graded based on
>observer's preference and cultural expectation? To say that a lens has
>lovely bokeh is not a scientific statement of fact.
>
>My own empirical evidence, in regard to some lenses, is usually based
>on repeatable anecdotal evidence, combined with scientific testing
>mostly to determine what is not a contributing factor. In other words,
>EVERY individual photo provides anecdotal evidence. A collection of
>photos provides empirical evidence. Controlled testing produces
>scientific evidence that helps explain the empirical evidence.

Obviously you have not yet read the latest in science:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foundations-reality

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-quantum-paradox-throws-the-foundations-of-observed-reality-into-question

WayneS


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>