Segal's Law
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
This ambiguity between endorsing one or two is why I kind of prefer the version of this law Fred Brooks cited:
>An ancient adage warns, "Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three." The same thing clearly applies to prose and formal definitions. If one has both, one must be the standard, and the other must be a derivative description, clearly labeled as such. Either can be the primary standard. Algol 68 has a formal definition as standard and a prose definition as descriptive. PL/I has the prose as standard and the formal description as derivative. System/360 also has prose as standard with a derived formal description.
In this context, the reader can be much more trusted to see that one chrono beats out two only by being cheaper (which might be worth it for short voyages), and one description beats out two only by being unambiguously the standard (which might be worth it for small or exploratory projects).
>cultural norms of "logic", etc
Your brain on logical relativism, I guess.
Less snarkily: the 1/2/3 watches example is a single, ~deterministic, ~knowable data point; it is roughly the simplest type of problem space you can deal with, and even here there is uncertainty. Now consider a much more complex problem space, reality (better known as "the reality"), and things get much worse. But paradoxically, with all the added complexity, "correct" answers often become simpler, not more difficult. (Here I am referring to the conversations you may find on social media (or anywhere) about complex matters such as war.)
[1] Having fun, fitting in, just joking, etc.
Why? It's neither the subject at hand nor have you expressed it meaningfully. I dismissed you because I'm optimizing for productive concrete discussion in the face of your social gaming, and you argued against me on the same grounds only because you lack the self-awareness to see that. Assuming conclusively someone is necessarily incorrect only because they were snarky when they ignored you is not an optimum strategy.
Can be good practice to avoid making the classic errors you just made.
Sorry if it sounded like an order, I meant it more as a suggestion.
Why do You People do this? Why do you not behave more logically?
This conversation is like pulling teeth. Fix this or I'm done wasting my time.
Are you engaging in rhetoric, or are you actually serious?
Where is that quote from by the way?
Larcum Kendall's K1, a copy of John Harrison's H4,
H4 had cost over £20,000 (inflation adjusted £3,260,000) to develop. Kendall's K1 cost £500 (now £74,000) and his cheap model, K3, cost £100 (now £13,400), but by the time the Beagle voyages were over the cost of a good chronometer had fallen to under £40 (now £4,200).
It's awesome that we're seeing the same thing happen to spaceflight now with SpaceX developing fully reusable spacecraft, with simple resources (methane instead of hydrogen or hypergolics) and stainless steel.
Reminds me of the "wait calculation" paradox, where it's always better to wait to start building your interstellar spaceship, because if you wait another 50 years, you will be building a better spaceship that will shave off more than 50 years of your flight time. [1] (Ok, in the original research paper it's not a paradox, but I like to think of it as one.)
1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260275150_Interstel...
Ironically, Segal's Law, which you seem to approve of, is itself an analogy. I don't think anyone here is really concerned with knowing what time it is or whether or not it's a good idea to wear two watches.
Analogies are so powerful that you can often prove both X and not(X) simply by finding the fitting analogy.
The best approach in some cases is to ignore uncertainty and move forward - carrying one watch, as it were.
Two other valid approaches are voting and medians. These are both accomplished with 3 watches.
The crux of Segal's law is that all measuring instruments are imperfect. We could bicker endlessly about the best way to use our tools, but at some point someone's just going to need to know what the damn time is.
The other two:
- “Know thyself.”
- “Everything in moderation.”
Good advice, difficult to keep in mind!
Not quite. A more accurate version would be:
"A person with a watch thinks they know what time it is, but they are wrong. A person with two watches is never sure, and they are right."
---
EDIT: And Einstein is watching from above, smiling.
I don't think you will necessarily get a higher precision, but your confidence of the indicated time is higher.
Besides that, I believe your version explains only one facet of the quote. Another interpretation could be analogous to paralysis of choice - in practice both watches are precise enough, focusing on the difference is just misleading you.