Plan9 Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 And isn't it impossible, and maybe wrong to try, to measure art scientifically? We all like order and structure in our lives, but is this really possible when applied to judging drum corps? Einstein tried to do it.....on the beach! :ph34r:/> 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Also, things get 'dangerous' (and IMO flat out naive, inept, and wrong), to make assertions and broad accusations/theories based on nothing more than numbers that were awarded by humans for 150 humans' performance. It is fun to analyze recaps, score trends, etc: and there are some conclusions that can be made based on that analysis. But making an argument based SOLELY on just looking at numbers on a recap is a VERY incomplete analysis, let alone an invalid process to form an informed conclusion. Not only are scores given by judges who all bring their unique experience, tastes, and interpretation of the criteria to the field, but also scores are based on the performance qualities of a large group of amateur performers: fairly young ones, at that! There are so many variables that go into ranking and rating a corps (which have been documented and discussed ad nauseam here over the years. Of course, it's always amusing to sit on the sidelines of these "debates" and read people write their pseudo-condesending babble filled with fancy jargon, and continually demonstrate that while they might have incredible expertise in one field they certainly are naive about others that might seem related to a great degree in their minds, but not so much in reality. Exactly. It's so easy to commit the following fallacy: If A then B B Therefore A so, Slotting bias causes a recognizable data plot DCI scores show that data plot Therefore slotting is occurring. In the textbook he cited I'm sure the data being measured were exactly checkable; that is, the experimenters could measure the "correct" values and could therefore exactly measure the error in the assessments. The variation must be error, in other words. And if the error shows a slotting tendency, well, that's likely a slotting bias. It's so easy when dealing with machines! With the scores that's not the case, because of all the other influencers on the score. We don't know the "correct" score, so we can't conclude that the similar looking data can only be explained by slotting. We can absolutely conclude that it was either slotting, or something else. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadScout80 Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Zzzzzzz... 13stroke, you really can't be serious. You one of those people who submit bogus articles to journals trying to catch the editors napping at the wheel? And the more a person actually knows on the subject the more obvious it is that the article is a complete joke? I guess it does get boring when a guy who actually knows something doesn't bite. Gotta say though, some of your posts were pretty entertaining. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 And isn't it impossible, and maybe wrong to try, to measure art scientifically? Count the stars in the sky. Measure the waters of the oceans with a teaspoon. Number the grains of sand on the sea shore. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) 13stroke, you really can't be serious. You one of those people who submit bogus articles to journals trying to catch the editors napping at the wheel? And the more a person actually knows on the subject the more obvious it is that the article is a complete joke? I guess it does get boring when a guy who actually knows something doesn't bite. Gotta say though, some of your posts were pretty entertaining. He reminds me of the smarmy choad in Good Will Hunting that tries to make Matt Damon's character look like an idiot in the bar then it backfires... Edited July 24, 2013 by BozzlyB 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13strokeroll Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 13stroke, you really can't be serious. You one of those people who submit bogus articles to journals trying to catch the editors napping at the wheel? And the more a person actually knows on the subject the more obvious it is that the article is a complete joke? I guess it does get boring when a guy who actually knows something doesn't bite. Gotta say though, some of your posts were pretty entertaining. Google W. Edwards Deming and then talk about bogus. Conversation is complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13strokeroll Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 I honestly don't really follow what exact point is being argued about, but I will just point out that fully subjective numbers assigned by humans are not the same kind of dataset as objective measurements of physical properties in which errors can be detected. They are. I make a very good living at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Google W. Edwards Deming and then talk about bogus. Conversation is complete. Anyone know what fallacy involves requiring people to read particular books, or be wrong? Bill: Apples are bigger than oranges. Jim: Go read All About Oranges by Sam Smith, then you'll see how wrong you are. Although I can recognize the Ad Hominems: "If you had ever read that book you'd have at least a high school education about fruit." Now, I was able to see some of the pages you mentioned from Deming (442-). All very well written and easy enough to understand. Stuff about doctors assessing patients, and leather inspectors. But I think it might be a different edition (I saw pages from 1985 and 2000). What year was your's published? Also, I've searched on Google and on DCP for the thread you claim you posted it, but all I find is other threads in which you make similar arguments and insults. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bari Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Anyone know what fallacy involves requiring people to read particular books, or be wrong? Bill: Apples are bigger than oranges. Jim: Go read All About Oranges by Sam Smith, then you'll see how wrong you are. Although I can recognize the Ad Hominems: "If you had ever read that book you'd have at least a high school education about fruit." Now, I was able to see some of the pages you mentioned from Deming (442-). All very well written and easy enough to understand. Stuff about doctors assessing patients, and leather inspectors. But I think it might be a different edition (I saw pages from 1985 and 2000). What year was your's published? Also, I've searched on Google and on DCP for the thread you claim you posted it, but all I find is other threads in which you make similar arguments and insults. Now you aren't suggesting he is a 13 stroke troll are you? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Anyone know what fallacy involves requiring people to read particular books, or be wrong? Sure. Argument from authority. It's funny, given the reference to Good Will Hunting above, that your hypothetical example reads: Bill: Apples are bigger than oranges.Jim: Go read All About Oranges by Sam Smith, then you'll see how wrong you are. "How do you like them apples!" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.