Posted: Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm
Another gem of a comment by one Tulse:
I’m a visitor here, so perhaps I’m not familiar with the conventions of this blog. But if this were a physics blog and an Aristotelian asked how to calculate the position of an object from its motion, I wouldn’t expect the respondents to spend time arguing about the motives of the poster, or whether objects remain in motion or naturally come to rest — I’d expect someone to simply post:
y = x + vt + 1/2at**2
where:
y = final position
x = initial position
v = initial velocity
a = acceleration
t = time
If an alchemist asked on a chemistry blog how one might calculate the pressure of a gas, one wouldn’t argue about the nobility of gold or the Philosopher’s Stone — one would simply post:
p=(NkT)/V
where:
p = absolute pressure of the gas
N = number of gas molecules
k = Boltzmann’s constant
T = temperature of the gas
V = volume of the gas
And if a young-earth creationist asked on a biology blog how one can determine the relative frequencies of the alleles of a gene in a population, one wouldn’t argue about the literal interpretation of Genesis — one would simply post:
p² + 2pq + q² = 1
where:
p = population frequency of allele 1
q = population frequency of allele 2
These are examples of clear, detailed ways to calculate values, the kind of equations that practicing scientists uses all the time in quotidian research. Providing these equations allows one to make explicit quantitative calculations of the values, to test these values against the real world, and even to examine the variables and assumptions that underlie the equations.
Is there any reason the same sort of clarity cannot be provided for CSI?