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 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. -
-
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 07:28 PM)
Oh, so you DO agree that the movie compares the dangers of the nuclear age to that of a previous age. Therefore, it IS comparing one age to another, and the electronics of those ages are an aspect of them. Like I said, you're essentially denying the logical conclusion that follows from a premise, such as denying that the classic syllogism doesn't conclude that Socrates is mortal, because it's not explicitly stated in the premises.
You simply don't want to face the fact that the "complex electronics are more prone to failure" generalization is wrong. History shows us this. Here's some news for you: Hollywood's portrayal of technology is OFTEN wrong. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 07:46 PM)
"Oh, so you DO agree that the movie compares the dangers of the nuclear age to that of a previous age."
Please quote me where I said that.
"Therefore, it IS comparing one age to another, and the electronics of those ages are an aspect of them."
That's your assumption from something neither I nor the character ever said. You're really good at that.
"Hollywood's portrayal of technology is OFTEN wrong."
That's why it's called 'fiction.' So now you're claiming Hollywood movies are documentaries and real! Wow. -
robert3750-92-607013 — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 07:54 PM)
First you denied that you DIDN'T agree that the movie compares the dangers of the nuclear age to that of a previous age, and now you deny that you DO agree that the movie compares the dangers of the nuclear age to that of a previous age. You really don't understand the rules of logic:
"In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true."
"That's why it's called 'fiction.'"
Exactly. The movie's portrayal of technology is fiction. You admit it at last. -
BrianRaess_Is_FinallyGone — 11 years ago(November 10, 2014 08:01 PM)
"now you deny that you DO agree that the movie compares the dangers of the nuclear age to that of a previous age."
Please quote me where I said that.
"You really don't understand the rules of logic"
And you really don't have comprehension skills.
"The movie's portrayal of technology is fiction."
So now you're claiming that nuclear technology is fiction and not real. The fact is that nuclear technology is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_technology