Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John B. <jbslocomb@fictitious.site>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: fast tires
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 05:16:59 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 230
Message-ID: <89ka5kt5iop13dlm4ul14005pfct248sa3@4ax.com>
References: <rmm85ktggu0vob1ludf3l616sqkat5oo8q@4ax.com> <hkp85ktp9ldn2sior0s9sc9fakvs4ark1c@4ax.com> <tqq85kpl41p1odul79lgedn19gvndns1oh@4ax.com> <r4r85kplf4e82fv2duonegr7t6nlfg54fn@4ax.com> <psv85k1hiqkl38v5sk45b2rff7mnpks055@4ax.com> <4f095kh0d5eonng64iuf3kv5n98kfmi202@4ax.com> <ek195kh8ehev0gup9ipiisc7fu5aip5j21@4ax.com> <9r695ktpsv405bak1ijerdtlqg93kglof0@4ax.com> <ed995k166n06i0i6q12lum1hqcqs8ld64e@4ax.com> <1032dur$8ais$1@dont-email.me> <38j95khc61anrcivb1hr255udvv7ukcuk7@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 14:17:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e4cc9f36c294d12b65eca60044fa6568";
	logging-data="32137"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Gk9N468yWj76sADesJZLi2O9QHDp9ubM="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.10.32.1212
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qUE4eZUFqYPdhj6PMX5AsW8oXsE=

n Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:10:55 -0700, John B. <jbslocomb@fictitious.site>
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:36:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>On 6/19/2025 7:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
>>>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
>>>>>>>>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman
>>>>>>>>>>> <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> (...)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it accelerates downward at one "gee."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously.  Any engineering
>>>>>>>>>>>> professor should be able to do the same.  Any practicing engineer will
>>>>>>>>>>>> have gone through the same reasoning many times.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
>>>>>>>>>> That seems a bit excessive.  Do you memorize everything?  I don't,
>>>>>>>>>> mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
>>>>>>>>>> Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
>>>>>>>>>> proofs and calculations.  If you have memorized everything, I too
>>>>>>>>>> would be very impressed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is
>>>>>>>> learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and
>>>>>>>> paste or copying out of a book?  That seems to me like an attempt to
>>>>>>>> change the topic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok, I'll bite.  Rote is just one of many ways people learn.  We all
>>>>>>>> did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of
>>>>>>>> things, etc.  We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a
>>>>>>>> good way to begin learning.  I still learn by rote today.  For
>>>>>>>> example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
>>>>>>>> I make no attempt to understand those facts.  Some might be true, but
>>>>>>>> most are false.  I do some research and develop some understanding.
>>>>>>>> Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little.  If you've read my
>>>>>>>> comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results
>>>>>>>> of that research.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have any proof of your claims?  If Frank had copied from a book
>>>>>>>> or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that
>>>>>>>> match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds
>>>>>>>> mass.  I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
>>>>>>>> calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing:
>>>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
>>>>>>>> The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the
>>>>>>>> grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook.
>>>>>>>> Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a
>>>>>>>> book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing.  One
>>>>>>> >from the book and the other from the writer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how
>>>>>>>> things work BEFORE you could learn something.  If that's what you're
>>>>>>>> doing, it's rather self contradictory.  If not, how is it possible for
>>>>>>>> you to know how things work without first knowing first learning?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's fine background information.  You were the one who
>>>>>> introduced rote learning to this discussion.  I'm trying to determine
>>>>>> why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of
>>>>>> pounds force and pounds mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are two of my questions that you ignored.  I obviously can't
>>>>>> demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide.
>>>>>> That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
>>>>>> beliefs, opinions etc.  I do care how they derived or calculated those
>>>>>> convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.  Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by
>>>>>> cut and paste or copying out of a book?  That seems to me like an
>>>>>> attempt to change the topic.
>>> 
>>> I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was
>>> cut and paste..
>>> 
>>>>>> 2.  If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know
>>>>>> how things work BEFORE you could learn something.  If that's what
>>>>>> you're doing, it's rather self contradictory.  If not, how is it
>>>>>> possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first
>>>>>> learning?
>>> 
>>> As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said
>>> was that I learn by analyzing how things work.  I am, as you might
>>> have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due
>>> to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
>>> 
>>> Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the
>>> discussion...
>>> 
>>>>> I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back
>>>>> when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just
>>>>> quoted the researcher's conclusions.
>>>>
>>>> You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again
>>>> with a "one-liner".  That's fine.  I can't force you to answer.
>>>>
>>>> I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
>>>> conclusions.  However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning
>>>> because it would be too much for most readers.  I simply reference the
>>>> researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at
>>>> their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my
>>>> comments.  I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research
>>>> that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.
>>> 
>>> I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
>>> interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and
>>> see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the
>>> collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are,
>>> but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're
>>> researching and how they define and label it.
>>> 
>>> I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
>>> "studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have
>>> an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
>>> 
>>>> Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you?  How about
>>>> someone else's data?  Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by
>>>> expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and
>>>> conclusions?
>>> 
>>> No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the
>>> pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
>>> presented.
>>> 
>>>> I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble.  I
>>>> would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a
>>>> research paper.  If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do
>>>> the same?  How's your statistics experience?
>>> 
>>> One needn't be an expert in statistics to note that because sometimes
>>> people with guns in their homes get shot doesn't mean that having a
>>> gun in the house makes it more likely to get shot.
>>> 
>>>> It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your
>>>> one-line description.  Frank probably cited a reference that had done
>>>> some research involving cycling.  Knowing Frank, it was probably about
>>>> bicycle infrastructure.  That's a very controversial topic, that has
>>>> as many opinions as there are researchers.  Frank probably posted a
>>>> link to a research report that agreed with his point of view.  With
>>>> minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite
>>>> or alternative points of view.  Or, I could massage the data to
>>>> reflect my point of view.  What were you expecting?  Faulty data or
>>>> faulty conclusions?
>>> 
>>> Actually, I'm not interested in studies involving cycling, nor am I
>>> interested in defending my contradictory opinions. I'm also not
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========