Re: AAT Theory

H. M. Hubey (
10 Oct 1995 00:13:08 -0400 (David L Burkhead ) writes:

> Show me a measurement. Numbers "assigned" by some subjective
>"gut feeling" are meaningless.

You are leaving yourself quite open to attacks about your
ignorance, but I won't push it. It will soon become obvious
to many how much you know.

Let's stick to the facts. Problems of the type above that I
mentioned occur in other fields. One of the fields in which
some of these ideas have been put to use is in linguistics.

The important thing is to be able to measure things and get a
concept of distance. Similarity measures are important in fields
in which we cannot select arbitrary units with which to measure
the fundamental dimensions of physics.

For mechanics we need L,T, and F (or M). For thermal stuff
we need Temperature and for electro-magnetism we need another
fundamental dimension, charge Q. The dimensional analysis
that is used in the allomatric equations in which the
volume/area ratio is a simple example.

What is needed is more about things in which numbers will
take the place of fuzzy bone-gazing. See my other posts
on distance, similarity and analogical reasoning.

Then I advise you to join the fuzzy logic newsgroup.

> Taht some people might have difficulty recognizing them is
>immaterial. The _term_ has a precise meaning _in science_.

It still boils down at the perceptual level finally to
gazing at something. I doubt that the apple tree is defined
via its chemical composition. It's the same problem but
as usual your emotions have gotten a hold of you. That's OK.
YOu'll get over it soon.

> The "giving latin names" crack is irrelevant and a cheap shot.

It was a cheap shot but a well-deserved one for some people.
And you belong to this group.

PS. I didn't read the rest. It's too long and probably
irrelevant. If you want to make a point, make it short.


Regards, Mark