At one point, a technology "expert" claims that more complex machines are more prone to failure than simpler ones. This
-
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 06:47 PM)
When a person says something, logical inferences follow from it. If a person says "increased medical knowledge results in better medical care", it's a completely logical inference to say that person is saying that medical care today is better than it was in the past, because we obviously have greater medical knowledge now than we did in the past. A similar logical inference follows from the "expert's" statement.
FACT: Electronic systems become more complex over time. Therefore, electronic systems (especially those used by the DOD) in the 60s were more complex than they were in a previous era. Therefore, when comparing more complex to less complex, he was comparing electronic systems of the past to those of the present.
Care to describe the less complex US Early Warning system IN THE SAME YEAR that he was comparing the more complex one to? -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 07:49 PM)
It depends on the context. What if that person said that in answer to why they were studying oncology after having studied to be a primary physician? Then "increased medical knowledge results in better medical care" would be about their own professional growth and not at all a statement about current day medical care compared to the past.
General Bogan: Mr. Knapp here knows as much about electronic gear as anyone. He'd like to say something.
Gordon Knapp: The more complex an electronic system gets, the more accident prone it is. Sooner or later it breaks down.
Secretary Swenson: What breaks down?
Gordon Knapp: A transistor blows . . . a condenser burns out . . . sometimes they just get tiedlike people.
Professor Groeteschele: Mr. Knapp overlooks one factor, the machines are supervised by humans. Even if the machine fails a human can always correct the mistake.
Gordon Knapp: I wish you were right. The fact is, the machines work so fast . . . they are so intricate . . . the mistakes they make are so subtle . . . that very often a human being just can't know whether a machine is lying or telling the truth.
Care to describe where he was comparing 1964 electronics to electronics of the past in that dialogue? -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 07:58 PM)
I already did. It logically follows. Electronics become more complex over time, especially those used by the DOD's Early Warning System. Therefore, when when comparing more complex system A to less complex system B, one is comparing A to system B that was of a previous era. The fact is that people in 1964 KNEW that the more complex electronic systems of the 1960s were LESS accident prone than previous systems that were LESS complex. The premise in the movie is wrong. Period.
-
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 08:07 PM)
Then why do engineers at NASA, MIT, etc accept Professor Charles Perrow's Normal Accident Theory which supports the opposite of what you're saying?
btw, how do you know what "people in 1964" knew? And how can you call it a fact when that's nothing more than your opinion? Obviously, those are only more assumptions/conclusions/implications/inferences that you continue to employ without being able to support with actual facts. -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 08:22 PM)
You're comparing apples and oranges. Perrow was referring to systems involving organizations, meaning people. From the Wiki article:
"Perrow's argument rests on three principles. Firstly,
people make mistakes
, even at nuclear plants. Secondly, big accidents almost always escalate from very small beginnings. Thirdly,
many failures are those of organizations more than technology.
"
The "expert" in the movie wasn't talking about organizations and mistakes made by people. He was talking about electronics. BIG difference.
Do you really think that electronic engineers knew nothing about failure rates in the systems they designed? I indeed cited facts, such as the FACT that the ENIAC machine had a very high failure rate compared to the IBM 360. Your contention is that the people in the 60s who designed the 360 were blissfully unaware of this. Yeah, right. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 08:32 PM)
Sorry, but his theory goes much farther than just organizations. You should read more than just a wiki article.
Yes, he was talking about electronics. And how you can't see that complex electronics, which is complex because it has more moving parts (so to speak), has more circuitry, has more wiring, has more data, etc, etc, has more chances of something going wrong than an electric toaster baffles me. Complex isn't synonymous with stability. Or are you going to tell me that your complex smartphone is less prone to failure than a simple rotary phone from the 1970s? Sadly, I think you will. -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 08:39 PM)
You really need to stop comparing apples and oranges. Toasters and rotary phones are electrical devices, not electronic ones. The fact is that comparing the reliability of computers and other electronic systems to those of the past is indisputable proof that his generality is wrong, no matter how you try to ignore the logic.
-
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 09:16 PM)
It's the fundamental premise that my logic is based on, so if you don't deny it, then you'd have to show where the logic is flawed:
Premise: Electronic systems become more complex over time
Therefore, comparing less complex electronic systems to more complex ones involves comparing past systems to present ones. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 09:26 PM)
I have shown how it's flawedmultiple times. Your "logic" is based on the assumption that the expert in the movie was comparing 1964 technology to an older technology. He wasn't. You can argue in circles all you want about how he was, but that's just your assumption/interpretation. And that's just you adding that to fit your "logic." The actual dialogue and the context in which the dialogue is delivered says otherwise. No matter how much you try to ignore it.
-
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 09, 2014 09:41 PM)
You're confusing "assumption" with "logical inference". If he makes a comparison between more complex and less complex systems, he's comparing systems from different times, because as I said (and which you explicitly said you don't deny), electronic systems become more complex over time. That's the logic you simply can't refute.
-
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 12:25 PM)
"If he makes a comparison between more complex and less complex systems, he's comparing systems."
Fixed it for you.
"electronic systems become more complex over time."
I've never at any point disagreed with this.
"he's comparing systems from different times"
This is incorrect. This is the part you simply can't comprehend. -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 12:49 PM)
No, what you can't comprehend is the logic that follows from preceding premises. You would claim that it doesn't follow that Socrates is mortal in the classic syllogism because it isn't explicitly stated in the premises.
It's a fundamental theme of the movie that electronics in the nuclear
AGE
are too complex. But I suppose you'll try to deny that. -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 06:20 PM)
Thanks for finally agreeing that the movie is making a claim about a particular
AGE.
Therefore, it is making a comparison to a PREVIOUS age of LESS electronic complexity. As I've already demonstrated, the history of electronics proves the claim wrong. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 06:30 PM)
Not at all. You said "nuclear age." The movie takes place in 1964, in the nuclear age. The expert is talking about electronics in 1964, which is the nuclear age.
"Therefore, it is making a comparison to a PREVIOUS age of LESS electronic complexity."
Not according to the dialogue. Which you keep ignoring in order to make your point. -