evaluation

How can you tell, if you’re not an expert? (1)

Paradoxers

Our chief consultant writes: an occupational hazard of working in a Physics or Astronomy Department, or at an Observatory, is the occasional receipt of an unsolicited paper from someone outside these sciences. One of these typically presents a new theory, more or less sweeping in its results, that corrects (perceived) errors now being made by scientists.

Physicists and astronomers generally spend little time on them. It is highly unlikely that someone with a minimal or mistaken grasp of the sciences (as these invariably display) will stumble upon something useful that many very capable scientists have missed. It also requires a lot of time and concentration to get through an often torturous piece of writing. (It is a good exercise for teachers, however, in distinguishing poor presentation from genuine error. Sometimes they’re passed on to graduate students to hone their thinking.) In the nineteenth century the authors of this kind of thing were squaring the circle and disproving Newton. Augustus de Morgan made a study of them, calling them “paradoxers” (using the word “paradox” in a different sense than we do today), and Five Colors S&T has adopted this term. (It’s worthwhile dipping into de Morgan’s A Budget of Paradoxes if you can find a copy. The writing is dense, but often entertaining.)

Read More

Share Button

Use that camera! . . . but why?

Kodak 1918 camera and iPhoneOur photography correspondent writes: We’ve just gone live with our Use that camera! service, showing people how to use their film cameras.  But why would anyone want to do that?

Well, it’s not that film is better than digital.  That’s been settled.  With possible very tiny, specialized exceptions, digital photography can do everything film can do, and plenty that it can’t.  Digital pictures are available immediately, can be sent from your phone, can be adjusted to match your imaging vision in amazing detail; you think up your own virtues.

I still shoot film, for reasons that aren’t relevant here.  The question is why you would want to.  I can think up a few possibilities:

  • It’s different. You want to distinguish yourself from the crowd, or maybe just want some variety.
  • It’s difficult.  You like challenges.  There’s also the fun of bragging about how you overcame them.
  • Operating a fine old machine.  There is a pleasure in using a well-crafted device, even apart from any results you get.
  • It’s there, so it should be used.  It’s a shame that any well-made machine should rust away uselessly.
  • There’s a special connection.  Your great-uncle used it to take those pictures in the old album, and when you look through the viewfinder you realize you’re doing just what he did.  (Our working title for the service was Your Grandfather’s Camera.)
  • You’re writing an historical novel.  You’re aware that a 1940 Leica does not work like an iPhone, but you’re fuzzy on the details and it’s important to the plot.

The most important reason is the one that motivates you.  It may not be possible to put it into words, and it doesn’t need to be noble and serious.  Simple curiousity is a wonderful thing.

So: why would you use that camera?

Share Button