I understand the point of the remark. As indicated by the smiley emoticon,
I was primarily tweeking Michael'S nose a little. However, I am serious
about disagreeing with the idea that "the person explaining the concept
could be said to understand it only if he/she were able to set it forth in a
short but pithy form. This is often not the case but does seem to resist
counter-examples and persist as a myth. While it is possible that by
putting forth an explanation in a short pithy form, one can present the
appearance of understanding the topic or concept to those who do not know
the subject matter in any detailed fashion; but typically for a person to be
able to tell if the short pithy explanation shows an understanding, they
themselves have to know the concept and bring along the background knowledge
to interpret the short pithy explanatory gloss. Consequently, there may be
subjects which are not amenable to short pithy explanations by those who may
understand the material very well, except when they are speaking with others
who already know the code words and have the relevant necessary background
knowledge and information at hand to fill in the blanks and interpret the
conceptual code embodied by the language used to express the short pithy
explanation.
But let us not make this into a mountain out of a mole hill. :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka,
Sr.
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:54 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: ColorCorrectionLink
The point of the statement attributed to Einstein is not that the child
could then understand it, but that the person explaining the concept could
be said to understand it only if he/she were able to set it forth in a short
but pithy form.
Maris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: ColorCorrectionLink
| Hmmm! I do not know too many children that Einstein explained his theory
of
| relativity to who truely understood it and all its mathematical
| formulations. :-) Just because one can explain something in the grossly
| popularized fashion so that a child can get the general gist of the
concepts
| does not mean that they have explained it or that it is truely understood
by
| child or adult, explainer or explainee. ;-) Sometimes, things are not
| explainable, articulatable, or effable not so much due to their complexity
| as to the fact that the underlying notions and conceptions present an
alien
| version of reality which those not open to accepting it by bracketing
their
| beliefs in their own versions of reality and calling those assumptions
into
| question as problematic will have trouble comprehending the edifice that
is
| built upon that substructureal foundation.
|
| Maybe this is the case with color management and color correction theories
| and procedures.
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
| [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Michael Moore
| Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 11:05 AM
| To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
| Subject: Re: filmscanners: ColorCorrectionLink
|
|
| Tony: This was a test... I believe it was Einstein who said that if you
| cannot
| explain a complex concept to a child, then you do not truly understand it
| yourself.... :)
|
| Mike M.
|
|
| Tony Sleep wrote:
|
| > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 21:57:05 -0600 Michael Moore (miguelmas@qwest.net)
| > wrote:
| >
| > >
| > >
| > > If anyone who thinks they understand it well enough to explain it to a
| > > child wants to share that understanding, I would be most grateful...
| >
| > Fraser is a star, presenting dreadful technical material with amazing
| > clarity and eloquence. I don't think it's at all a difficult article, so
| > long as you understand the stuff he doesn't go into there - profiling
etc.
| > If you don't, the solution is to read more Fraser features about the
stuff
| > that seems confusing (lots at Creative Pro), or buy his books.
| >
| > However, since I have now demeaned your intellectual ability and
| > slovenliness <g>, I had better offer a quick precis :
| >
| > When reprofiling, use the 'perceptual intent' rendering method except
when
| > one of the other choices works better. In which case use that.
| >
| > :-))
| >
| > Regards
| >
| > Tony Sleep
| > - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
| > info & comparisons
|
|
