Sorry, I was looking for anything to put off studying...burntnibblesFebruary 26 2007, 07:31:11 UTC
Hey Chetters-- Had some thoughts on this. Okay, a lot of thoughts...
First, I'm not sure these two "contests" are really analogous at all. 2 main points on that...
1. "RIVALRY" VS. "SYMBIOSIS" PROBLEM
In the first case, there is a contest between technology-makers that produce inherently competing products. In the second case, you have a struggle involving a technology-maker and its limited ability to meet the demands of its consumer.
The most apparent problem in making an analogy between these two "contests" lies in the simple fact that one is a contest and the other is not; the relationship between the armor-makers and arms-makers is an economic rivalry, whereas the compared case demonstrates a categorically opposite association--an economic symbiosis.
So a fundamental contrast, this dynamic of "rivalry" versus "symbiosis" underlying the relationship between these two cases, is in itself is fairly unforgiving on the comparison.
2. A SECOND WAY THEY ARE CATEGORICALLY OPPOSITE: "PERFECT RIVALRY" VS. "IMPERFECT SYMBIOSIS"
To subvert the analogy even more, consider that a set of categorically opposite qualifiers could be attached to the previously mentioned terms: "perfect rivalry" versus "imperfect symbiosis".
(To explain...)
The first case is a theoretically "perfect" dualistic conflict--that is, an ongoing battle in which neither of two competing forces has a substantive advantage over its opponent. A complete deadlock.
Setting aside the possibility that there may be additional historical information that could be injected into this discussion that would suggest the contrary, we can only infer from the quotation's rather bare elaboration on the first case that it is defined by a proportional amount of influence posed by the armor-maker and arms-maker and on their respective relationship, whereas in the second case, no such equillibrium exists. In other words: the armor-making industry and arms-making industry presumably contribute evenly to the outcome of their respective relationship (a "perfect rivalry" measured by the continually off-setting technological developments of battleships), but with the case of the scientists and instrument-makers there is not equal contribution of influence on the outcome of their respective relationship (an "imperfect symbiosis" -- but how do I gather this?).
2a.) EXPLAINING "IMPERFECT SYMBIOSIS" LABEL
A strict reading of Youden's quotation shows simply that the measurement accuracy demands of scientists is only limited by the capability of the instrument-technology made available by intrument-makers. If you accept the implicit premises that the duties of the "scientist" and "the instrument maker" are unique and do not overlap (read: the duty of a scientist is not to include the instrument-maker's duty of "inventing better measurement instruments", but rather only to "measure" [phenomena] and "undertake problems that require more accurate measurements"), we can deduce that the aforementioned sole limitation of scientists stems not from any apparent deficiency in the their effectiveness at fulfilling their own duty but rather entirely from a deficiency in the effectiveness of the instrument-maker at fulfilling their duty. Therefore, since scientists are limited, then their limitation is the fault of the instrument-maker.
So, if it is the case that scientists in fact fulfill their occupational duties to the furthest extent that they can within the constraints inadvertantly placed on them by instrument-makers who fail to fulfill their duties, it can be deduced that the scientist, who makes his maximum contribution to his relationship with instrument-maker (who fails to maximize his contributions), is the more influential of the parties in their smybiotic relationship.
Since symbiosis isn't reciprocal, it cannot be perfect. Therefore, the two cases are even more different (see again: "perfect rivalry" vs. "imperfect symbiosis" ____________
First, I'm not sure these two "contests" are really analogous at all. 2 main points on that...
1. "RIVALRY" VS. "SYMBIOSIS" PROBLEM
In the first case, there is a contest between technology-makers that produce inherently competing products. In the second case, you have a struggle involving a technology-maker and its limited ability to meet the demands of its consumer.
The most apparent problem in making an analogy between these two "contests" lies in the simple fact that one is a contest and the other is not; the relationship between the armor-makers and arms-makers is an economic rivalry, whereas the compared case demonstrates a categorically opposite association--an economic symbiosis.
So a fundamental contrast, this dynamic of "rivalry" versus "symbiosis" underlying the relationship between these two cases, is in itself is fairly unforgiving on the comparison.
2. A SECOND WAY THEY ARE CATEGORICALLY OPPOSITE:
"PERFECT RIVALRY" VS. "IMPERFECT SYMBIOSIS"
To subvert the analogy even more, consider that a set of categorically opposite qualifiers could be attached to the previously mentioned terms: "perfect rivalry" versus "imperfect symbiosis".
(To explain...)
The first case is a theoretically "perfect" dualistic conflict--that is, an ongoing battle in which neither of two competing forces has a substantive advantage over its opponent. A complete deadlock.
Setting aside the possibility that there may be additional historical information that could be injected into this discussion that would suggest the contrary, we can only infer from the quotation's rather bare elaboration on the first case that it is defined by a proportional amount of influence posed by the armor-maker and arms-maker and on their respective relationship, whereas in the second case, no such equillibrium exists. In other words: the armor-making industry and arms-making industry presumably contribute evenly to the outcome of their respective relationship (a "perfect rivalry" measured by the continually off-setting technological developments of battleships), but with the case of the scientists and instrument-makers there is not equal contribution of influence on the outcome of their respective relationship (an "imperfect symbiosis" -- but how do I gather this?).
2a.) EXPLAINING "IMPERFECT SYMBIOSIS" LABEL
A strict reading of Youden's quotation shows simply that the measurement accuracy demands of scientists is only limited by the capability of the instrument-technology made available by intrument-makers. If you accept the implicit premises that the duties of the "scientist" and "the instrument maker" are unique and do not overlap (read: the duty of a scientist is not to include the instrument-maker's duty of "inventing better measurement instruments", but rather only to "measure" [phenomena] and "undertake problems that require more accurate measurements"), we can deduce that the aforementioned sole limitation of scientists stems not from any apparent deficiency in the their effectiveness at fulfilling their own duty but rather entirely from a deficiency in the effectiveness of the instrument-maker at fulfilling their duty. Therefore, since scientists are limited, then their limitation is the fault of the instrument-maker.
So, if it is the case that scientists in fact fulfill their occupational duties to the furthest extent that they can within the constraints inadvertantly placed on them by instrument-makers who fail to fulfill their duties, it can be deduced that the scientist, who makes his maximum contribution to his relationship with instrument-maker (who fails to maximize his contributions), is the more influential of the parties in their smybiotic relationship.
Since symbiosis isn't reciprocal, it cannot be perfect. Therefore, the two cases are even more different (see again: "perfect rivalry" vs. "imperfect symbiosis"
____________
Reply
Leave a comment