Scientism (1) once more rears its ugly head on RBT



A

Andre Jute

Guest
It should be clear by now from the contemporary thread "The zero wind
tunnel option for serious cyclists" --
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.b...41607/0ccea8efe5ad78b3?hl=en#0ccea8efe5ad78b3
-- that I see no insuperable difficulty in getting a useful practical
result of Cd or CdA for a particular cyclist on his own roads under
average conditions, and that, equally, I think repeatable accuracy (of
the kind the wannabe academics on RBT are always demanding because
they think it makes them look knowledgeable) will definitely require
time in a wind tunnel with a dummy on a bike, and then won't translate
precisely to a human because the little bastards are always making
unconscious shifts in their position, and can't even pedal without
moving their legs.

What I'd really like to do is to put a set of various shapes and sizes
of cyclists, real human ones, in the wind tunnel in cycling clothes
from street to wrinkly lycra to skintight racing, and let them settle
to a natural posture and blow air over them from various angles at
various speeds -- and then we'll discover a *huge* variability which
will absolutely dwarf the irrelevant 2% accuracy Creepy Carl was
whining about yesterday. Jesus save me from the scientism (1) of
people who can't grasp that 2% when you're talking about something as
variable as the human body is incredibly accuracy -- so high in fact
that it automatically becomes questionable precisely because it is so
precise!

Don't misunderstand me. I admire and honor the fellows working
obsessively to achieve greater accuracy and precision in cyclist wind
drag simply for the satisfaction of saying that they did it, and I'll
gleefully use their ranges of numbers when they finalize them, and I
am happy to use their interim numbers with confidence until then. But
I don't think that for hobby cyclists such precision is required or
such accuracy is of more than intellectual interest, certainly not to
the point of splashing out on expensive instruments. And I abhor the
slack clowns who don't have the brains to make the distinction or,
worse, try to build up their profiles on the net by kibbitzing the
work of their betters for not being perfect.

Perfection is a helix we spiral down until we die. And just before we
die, the Japanese will invent a handheld nuclear laser micrometer
10^15 more accurate than the benchtop model, and the hunt for
"precision" starts again. Life's a ***** and then you die before you
find out what--

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE & CYCLING.html

(1) Scientism is an excessive belief in the power of scientific
knowledge and techniques. We often see it when third rate academics or
wannbe academics use thought or expression they regard as
characteristic of scientists. The crudest version is the demand for
spurious "rigor" or "accuracy" or "precision" to an extent totally
irrelevant to the function being performed for what are after all
hobbyists. Examples of scientism on RBT are Carl Fogel and his fellow-
traveller Tim McNamara.
 

Similar threads