Funny how some fellers totally disrespect and disregard the so-called 'book knowledge' generated by those guys Galileo and Newton, whose names are remembered four centuries after their work. Men whose ideas were so painstakingly and perfectly crafted as to be substantianted without exception by nearly 400 years of the most meticulous and skeptical experimental testing, and whose conclusions remain the foundation of the most modern mechanical systems analyses.
400 YEARS of substantiation for those guys. Yet some fellers in this thread, who choose to grasp at straws for their position (not their ideas), decide to gleefully discount those intellectual giants because they lacked sufficient PIC hours. Then the same fellers proceed to whine about others' purported disregard for their vast experience - maybe a few thousand HOURS of anecdotal evidence from which they prefer to draw absolute conclusions. I'm not talking about S2D and Ag-Pilot and those who write similarly, I'm talking about a couple others.
I don't recall having heard anybody diss on what these ag guys are saying - I have only heard folks try to explain. (don't beat up on me too much for that sentence - I realize that I may be remembering wrong). But I sure have heard a few fellows make the snarkiest (I LIKE that relatively new word - it just SOUNDS right!!) of remarks regarding the 'book' ideas some of us have offered.
To paraphrase Kathleen Parker, the syndicated columnist, those who are unwilling to listen and think and modify or add to their ideas will forever remain afflicted with 'selective ignorance'.
Several of us on both sides of this discussion have consistently tried to remain polite, and have posed or at least rationally discussed possible mechanisms that could reconcile the differences of opinion and observations presented here. I am one of those who have spent hours thinking about the situation because it's interesting - then formulating and typing lay and technical explanations of accepted mechanical knowledge, and proposing possible explanations for differences.
I am a teacher, so I deal daily with kids who do not want to learn (in the case of kids, they tend to either think it's irrelevant, or more commonly, they think they can't). But I sure hate to see closed-mindedness among us intelligent adults. I think I'm still being polite, but this time I am taking the liberty of stating rather directly what is on my mind right now about the PROCESS of this discussion. Can we PLEASE discuss this rationally, with integrity and respect, and with the intent to figure out what, EXACTLY, is happening, and WHY? And with a willingness to modify our thinking? I have had some excellent, thought-provoking email interchanges with TonyRV, the physicist who posted early on. We have been sharing and trading information and analytical perspectives - agreeing, and disagreeing, and each willing to modify our own thinking - not trying to beat each other down, but to figure the phenomena out. Can't the rest of us follow suit on this thread??
Those who merely scoff at my and others' "book-learning" (only a couple of folks are doing that) don't bother me much because I consider the source, but nonetheless fellows, guess what? I've been around a little in my 60-some years. I have a couple of degrees, and a couple of broken bones too. Got 'em working. I've wrecked (and fixed) a couple planes in the boonies of Alaska, and I've successfully operated out of some places there where none of my acquaintances would go. Bragging? Good grief, no. Just pointing out that I'm aware of what stick and rudder and throttle are about. Anyway, I know exactly why each wreck happened (one was from gusting. And of course poor judgment was mixed in). I can explain them with mathematical models as well as with plain English, and I can avoid them in the future. I teach math and science, and in the summer I make hay and log with teams of draft horses - my point? I take pride in applying 'book-learning' in the same places as my dirty hands. Engaging head and hands together potentiates the ultimate synergy of human endeavor.
So don't diss on the books. They have accumulated knowledge to offer. Can we correctly apply that knowledge? That is the challenge. Knowledge is not generated by repeating a mantra - it comes from independent thinking. Let's get to thinking more, and reciting our favored chant less. We might actually figure this out and - and more importantly, escape selective ignorance.
End of rant - thanks for letting me hold forth - - -