You’re thinking like an academic, which is often alien and “wrong” to the broader populace, just like a properly labelled graph (according to a previous discussion on Lemmy, lol).
But I agree. In engineering one quickly learns the difference between the “perfect” and “real” world. In the perfect world, you can assume that 1+1 always equals 2, gravity always goes down, wind resistance is 0, and our scientific model (of any given time and version, choice is yours) is always correct.
In the real world nothing makes sense, nothing fits, you’re lucky if 1+1=2 within a ±0.1 error, and did you just discover the topic for another weird research project? Shit.
And does @[email protected] 's Mt. St. Helens really exist? No clue, I’ll take anyone’s word for it. One could drag me up some random mountain and tell me that’s it, but, in the end, I’d just be spewing someone else’s opinion. (which is good, agreement must be had to do anything productive, but we’re currently talking objectivity, and not agreement.)
You’re thinking like an academic, which is often alien and “wrong” to the broader populace, just like a properly labelled graph (according to a previous discussion on Lemmy, lol).
But I agree. In engineering one quickly learns the difference between the “perfect” and “real” world. In the perfect world, you can assume that 1+1 always equals 2, gravity always goes down, wind resistance is 0, and our scientific model (of any given time and version, choice is yours) is always correct.
In the real world nothing makes sense, nothing fits, you’re lucky if 1+1=2 within a ±0.1 error, and did you just discover the topic for another weird research project? Shit.
And does @[email protected] 's Mt. St. Helens really exist? No clue, I’ll take anyone’s word for it. One could drag me up some random mountain and tell me that’s it, but, in the end, I’d just be spewing someone else’s opinion. (which is good, agreement must be had to do anything productive, but we’re currently talking objectivity, and not agreement.)