Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: fast tires
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:39:37 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 197
Message-ID: <ed995k166n06i0i6q12lum1hqcqs8ld64e@4ax.com>
References: <102ur8h$37k89$7@dont-email.me> <vjs55kplr3rnq692uhjujc97uljhgf7keo@4ax.com> <87msa3ioel.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <rmm85ktggu0vob1ludf3l616sqkat5oo8q@4ax.com> <hkp85ktp9ldn2sior0s9sc9fakvs4ark1c@4ax.com> <tqq85kpl41p1odul79lgedn19gvndns1oh@4ax.com> <r4r85kplf4e82fv2duonegr7t6nlfg54fn@4ax.com> <psv85k1hiqkl38v5sk45b2rff7mnpks055@4ax.com> <4f095kh0d5eonng64iuf3kv5n98kfmi202@4ax.com> <ek195kh8ehev0gup9ipiisc7fu5aip5j21@4ax.com> <9r695ktpsv405bak1ijerdtlqg93kglof0@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 02:39:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0fa51e7adf843ecd8db5b08abbbfe71a";
	logging-data="254529"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19YnzYSjJsRL2vq593GJ6fMiXjcVzx6fjE="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WhNZZgTMN/28bb5TFEGyPgTi9Is=

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
interested in seeing/hearing someone else defend their opinions, other
than, prhaps for analyzing their thought processes.

>Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote.  It's
>just another way of learning.  I learned to play piano by wrote. 

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========