The parable of the three Bicycles

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Are you referring to me as the present day buyer of the bike, or me as the Tech Writer? Why would they lie? What is thier motivation to lie? Ask as a lawyer would.

Let's drop the pretense of this stupid analogy and just do so directly. Why would others lie in order to create, establish, maintain, and control a religion? The answer is simple. Power.

Why am I buying a Bike and trying to build it if I dont even know what it is? This is a question of basic desire. You want to have a bike. You dont know what a bike is supposed to look like. Rather then trying at random to build it, you consult a manual.

You can only want a bike if you have some vague conception of what a bike does, and how it operates. If you've never seen a bike, have no idea its purpose, methods, or function, why would you want one?

Which is exactly what religion does. It promotes having the answers without ever demonstrating the validity of the questions. It's coming up to you with a box of parts, and instructions on how to "build a bike" to someone that doesn't know what a bike is.

Some people hit the nail on the head when they said, drive a car. They have no desire to build a bike. Fine. Some do.

And again, this is where your argument fails. A bike is something tangible. It is something real. We can look at what we created and decide whether that's something real, something true, something that we meant to design.

But let's change this parable to something more applicable, and more true to form. Let's say you find a box, and on that box says "parts to construct one Blarg". You have no idea what a blarg is. You have never seen one, you don't know what it is, what it does, how it functions, or what it's supposed to accomplish. There is no picture of a blarg on the box. You have absolutely no idea what this thing inside the box is supposed to be.

In the box are a bunch of parts, and instructions on how to assemble the blarg. You follow the instructions.

have you built a blarg?

Does the person who put the stuff in the box, who wrote the manual (or at least dictated the manual), who ACTUALLY knows what a blarg is, think you built a blarg? That is the question.

Now, if you built this Blag and it turns out not to be what the person who put the stuff in the box intended, there are several reasons.

1. A blarg never existed and someone was messing with you.
2. The box of parts was incomplete
3. The manual was incorrect or vague or misleading
4. You didnt read the manual.
5. You didnt have the right tools

I have no answer for 1. other than DOH! You got me.
2. is sort of deep

3-5 is where this message is coming from.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

They were dictated to by the Engineer who designed and built the bikes.

What about me being the Engineer? I can design and build a functional bike. I also understand the physical principles of bikes.

If you were the Engineer, you would BE the Engineer. There is only ONE Engineer and ONLY One universal optimal Bike, Male version and female version, of course, for certain comfort and safety reasons. There are different models of course, and they are all fine models, each though, is patterned after the One Universal Optimal Bike.

That's bollocks. There are tons of different models of bikes out there, some you wouldn't even recognise as such.

So what if you end up with the wrong manual for the bike you bought?

I said there were different models. Just in my ALLEGORY (geez, happy?), they are all made by the same Engineer. But, each model has an optimum set of specs and operating conditions.

[Ifreann]

Life is like building a bicycle. All that matters is getting a good ride.

[Treznor]

They were dictated to by the Engineer who designed and built the bikes.

How do you know that? Did the engineer tell you that? What if there are a lot of writers, who all claim to be told how to build by a lot of different engineers, which one (if any) is telling the truth?

How do you know that the instructions to build a bicycle actually build a bicycle, if you've never seen one? How do you know which is true?

I know that because the writers SAID thats where thier information came from. Now, you can dispute the writes of course. But if you pick one, and by using the manual, the bike turns out looking like a bike, the bike that was on the front cover, I'd say that would be a pretty reasonable manual.

Your analogy fails here. The manual has no pictures of what the bike is supposed to look like. It only contains badly translated descriptions of what the bike is supposed to do, and many of those descriptions are contradictory within the same manual.

Now, did you find my other post with the second half of the story that I made up on a whim, about the Engineer visiting the town and showing them the perfect bike? Now, some people recognized that thier manuals were not quite right and corected them, while others rejected the Engineer and His Bike, because over time, they thought they could build a better bike than Him.

Apparently, the reports of the Engineer visiting us have been greatly exaggerated, because no two accounts match. Furthermore, interpretations of what the Engineer said vary wildly, and "modern" interpretations are based on claims made by shysters who were convicted of fraud using the same tactics they used to justify the new interpretations.

[Kashindahar]

Given time and patience and a supply of crash test dummies, you can build a bicycle and rebuild it over and over until you discover the optimal configuration of the parts, with no need for a manual of dubious origin. You can then become rich selling your own manual, and retire in luxury.

Clearly this is what is good in life.

Of course. But since it takes a lifetime (ok we are deviating a bit) to build the optimal bike, think you might want a little hint to begin with?

You're kidding, surely. Give me a month.

[Neo Art]

But let's change this parable to something more applicable, and more true to form. Let's say you find a box, and on that box says "parts to construct one Blarg". You have no idea what a blarg is. You have never seen one, you don't know what it is, what it does, how it functions, or what it's supposed to accomplish. There is no picture of a blarg on the box. You have absolutely no idea what this thing inside the box is supposed to be. In fact, the original people who wrote the manual are dead, the language it's written in are dead, the original translators are dead, and the box with the parts contains several DIFFERENT manuals, each with some key differences.

In the box are a bunch of parts, and instructions on how to assemble the blarg. You follow the instructions.

have you built a blarg?

Does the person who put the stuff in the box, who wrote the manual (or at least dictated the manual), who ACTUALLY knows what a blarg is, think you built a blarg? That is the question.

You have no idea. You've never met him. you've never met the person who (supposedly) took dictation to write the manual from the engineer. You've never met the person who translated the supposed dictation into English. you've never seen the original copy of the manual.

You don't even know if there was an engineer in the first place.

Now, if you built this Blag and it turns out not to be what the person who put the stuff in the box intended, there are several reasons.

1. A blarg never existed and someone was messing with you.
2. The box of parts was incomplete
3. The manual was incorrect or vague or misleading
4. You didnt read the manual.
5. You didnt have the right tools

I have no answer for 1. other than DOH! You got me.
2. is sort of deep

3-5 is where this message is coming from.

and 1 and 3 seem to be the crux of my point. Either there was never any such thing as a "blarg", or there might be, but this particular manual is simply totally wrong. Not just "slightly" wrong, not something that gets you "close" to this theoretical blarg. But entirely, utterly, completely wrong.

Is it? can you show it's not?

In fact, let's make it even MORE fun. Next to this first box for a blarg is another box ALSO containing instructions and parts. In it are about half the parts of the first box, and the manual is only half as long. Is THIS the correct one? Is it missing parts, or does the other one have extranious parts?

And next to THAT box is a 3rd box. That box contains all the parts of the second box, and new parts that are totally different than the first one. The first half of the manual is the same as the first half of the first box (and the entire second box's manual) but the second half of it is different.

Then there's a 4th box with COMPLETELY different parts, and a manual with TOTALLY different instructions, which looks NOTHING like the other 3, except maybe for small parts like screws which are fairly universal.

And, by the way, there's a 5th box. That box is empty. The manual is simply one page. It reads "there is no such thing as a blarg".

Which is the right box? Which is the right blarg? Is there any such thing?

[Cabra West]

I said there were different models. Just in my ALLEGORY (geez, happy?), they are all made by the same Engineer. But, each model has an optimum set of specs and operating conditions.

Your allegory is made of fail, sorry.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

I said there were different models. Just in my ALLEGORY (geez, happy?), they are all made by the same Engineer. But, each model has an optimum set of specs and operating conditions.

Your allegory is made of fail, sorry.

Umm, sorry. What language is that. I dont understand the words you type in the order you type them. It must be me though.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

They were dictated to by the Engineer who designed and built the bikes.

How do you know that? Did the engineer tell you that? What if there are a lot of writers, who all claim to be told how to build by a lot of different engineers, which one (if any) is telling the truth?

How do you know that the instructions to build a bicycle actually build a bicycle, if you've never seen one? How do you know which is true?

I know that because the writers SAID thats where thier information came from. Now, you can dispute the writes of course. But if you pick one, and by using the manual, the bike turns out looking like a bike, the bike that was on the front cover, I'd say that would be a pretty reasonable manual.

Your analogy fails here. The manual has no pictures of what the bike is supposed to look like. It only contains badly translated descriptions of what the bike is supposed to do, and many of those descriptions are contradictory within the same manual.

Now, did you find my other post with the second half of the story that I made up on a whim, about the Engineer visiting the town and showing them the perfect bike? Now, some people recognized that thier manuals were not quite right and corected them, while others rejected the Engineer and His Bike, because over time, they thought they could build a better bike than Him.

Apparently, the reports of the Engineer visiting us have been greatly exaggerated, because no two accounts match. Furthermore, interpretations of what the Engineer said vary wildly, and "modern" interpretations are based on claims made by shysters who were convicted of fraud using the same tactics they used to justify the new interpretations.

Just because no 2 accounts match doesnt mean it didnt happen. Try getting 10 witnesses to an auto crash to have the same story. The fact that the stories dont match does not mean the crash didnt happen.

And to the first point, yeah, I'd submit that that was one of the BIG reasons why the Engineer took time out of His busy schedule and visited the town. He was concerned that the people werent making the bikes right, and thier manuals were old, ratty, and had been re-written and re-written over the years. He needed to make FRESH copies of the manuals. This time, He would show them what a Bike was SUPPOSED to look like.

[Cabra West]

I said there were different models. Just in my ALLEGORY (geez, happy?), they are all made by the same Engineer. But, each model has an optimum set of specs and operating conditions.

Your allegory is made of fail, sorry.

Umm, sorry. What language is that. I dont understand the words you type in the order you type them. It must be me though.

made of fail

Something or somebody that messed up or is so wrong that it is literally made of fail

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=made%20of%20fail

[Ifreann]

I said there were different models. Just in my ALLEGORY (geez, happy?), they are all made by the same Engineer. But, each model has an optimum set of specs and operating conditions.

Your allegory is made of fail, sorry.

Umm, sorry. What language is that. I dont understand the words you type in the order you type them. It must be me though.

It's idomatic English.

[Risottia]

They were dictated to by the Engineer who designed and built the bikes.

What about me being the Engineer? I can design and build a functional bike. I also understand the physical principles of bikes.

If you were the Engineer, you would BE the Engineer. There is only ONE Engineer and ONLY One universal optimal Bike, Male version and female version, of course, for certain comfort and safety reasons. There are different models of course, and they are all fine models, each though, is patterned after the One Universal Optimal Bike.

There is only one engineer? So the same engineer designs trains, nuclear powerplants, satellites, cars, aicrafts, ovens AND bikes? Very, very unlikely. I'd prefer to have different engineers, each one specialized in different items.

Also, there is no "only one universal optimal bike"... just as you said right after "there are different models". When you have different models, clearly it's different optimal bikes. And you know why? Because a racing bike is inherently different from a mountain bike (different overall elasticity for one), and the bike my granddad used to carry about 100 kg of books around the city was modeled to do so.

So, the logical need for a SINGLE engineer and a SINGLE optimal bike is still to be proven - if ever possible.

[Ifreann]

They were dictated to by the Engineer who designed and built the bikes.

What about me being the Engineer? I can design and build a functional bike. I also understand the physical principles of bikes.

If you were the Engineer, you would BE the Engineer. There is only ONE Engineer and ONLY One universal optimal Bike, Male version and female version, of course, for certain comfort and safety reasons. There are different models of course, and they are all fine models, each though, is patterned after the One Universal Optimal Bike.

There is only one engineer? So the same engineer designs trains, nuclear powerplants, satellites, cars, aicrafts, ovens AND bikes? Very, very unlikely. I'd prefer to have different engineers, each one specialized in different items.

Also, there is no "only one universal optimal bike"... just as you said right after "there are different models". When you have different models, clearly it's different optimal bikes. And you know why? Because a racing bike is inherently different from a mountain bike (different overall elasticity for one), and the bike my granddad used to carry about 100 kg of books around the city was modeled to do so.

So, the logical need for a SINGLE engineer and a SINGLE optimal bike is still to be proven - if ever possible.

Personally I wouldn't be too inclined to ride a bike that was designed in its entirety by one engineer. A team of engineers is more likely to correct each others mistakes.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

I said there were different models. Just in my ALLEGORY (geez, happy?), they are all made by the same Engineer. But, each model has an optimum set of specs and operating conditions.

Your allegory is made of fail, sorry.

Umm, sorry. What language is that. I dont understand the words you type in the order you type them. It must be me though.

It's idomatic English.

I stand corrected. I had am not fluent in idiotic English.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

They were dictated to by the Engineer who designed and built the bikes.

What about me being the Engineer? I can design and build a functional bike. I also understand the physical principles of bikes.

If you were the Engineer, you would BE the Engineer. There is only ONE Engineer and ONLY One universal optimal Bike, Male version and female version, of course, for certain comfort and safety reasons. There are different models of course, and they are all fine models, each though, is patterned after the One Universal Optimal Bike.

There is only one engineer? So the same engineer designs trains, nuclear powerplants, satellites, cars, aicrafts, ovens AND bikes? Very, very unlikely. I'd prefer to have different engineers, each one specialized in different items.

Also, there is no "only one universal optimal bike"... just as you said right after "there are different models". When you have different models, clearly it's different optimal bikes. And you know why? Because a racing bike is inherently different from a mountain bike (different overall elasticity for one), and the bike my granddad used to carry about 100 kg of books around the city was modeled to do so.

So, the logical need for a SINGLE engineer and a SINGLE optimal bike is still to be proven - if ever possible.

Personally I wouldn't be too inclined to ride a bike that was designed in its entirety by one engineer. A team of engineers is more likely to correct each others mistakes.

Fine, point taken. Still, my story.

[Ifreann]

I said there were different models. Just in my ALLEGORY (geez, happy?), they are all made by the same Engineer. But, each model has an optimum set of specs and operating conditions.

Your allegory is made of fail, sorry.

Umm, sorry. What language is that. I dont understand the words you type in the order you type them. It must be me though.

It's idomatic English.

I stand corrected. I had am not fluent in idiotic English.

Which is why I provided a handy link to the definition of "idiomatic". Though it seems you're still having some trouble.

[Risottia]

Personally I wouldn't be too inclined to ride a bike that was designed in its entirety by one engineer. A team of engineers is more likely to correct each others mistakes.

Well, you know, the distrust that I, as a physicist, have for engineers would actually prevent me to ride a bike designed by engineers altogether. But I didn't want to threadjack this into a physicists vs engineers thread...

[Ifreann]

They were dictated to by the Engineer who designed and built the bikes.

What about me being the Engineer? I can design and build a functional bike. I also understand the physical principles of bikes.

If you were the Engineer, you would BE the Engineer. There is only ONE Engineer and ONLY One universal optimal Bike, Male version and female version, of course, for certain comfort and safety reasons. There are different models of course, and they are all fine models, each though, is patterned after the One Universal Optimal Bike.

There is only one engineer? So the same engineer designs trains, nuclear powerplants, satellites, cars, aicrafts, ovens AND bikes? Very, very unlikely. I'd prefer to have different engineers, each one specialized in different items.

Also, there is no "only one universal optimal bike"... just as you said right after "there are different models". When you have different models, clearly it's different optimal bikes. And you know why? Because a racing bike is inherently different from a mountain bike (different overall elasticity for one), and the bike my granddad used to carry about 100 kg of books around the city was modeled to do so.

So, the logical need for a SINGLE engineer and a SINGLE optimal bike is still to be proven - if ever possible.

Personally I wouldn't be too inclined to ride a bike that was designed in its entirety by one engineer. A team of engineers is more likely to correct each others mistakes.

Fine, point taken. Still, my story.

Your story sucks. It concludes that a manual is required for the construction of a bicycle, when this is obviously not the case. The intellectually honest thing to do would be to accept this and find a new way to make your point.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

They were dictated to by the Engineer who designed and built the bikes.

What about me being the Engineer? I can design and build a functional bike. I also understand the physical principles of bikes.

If you were the Engineer, you would BE the Engineer. There is only ONE Engineer and ONLY One universal optimal Bike, Male version and female version, of course, for certain comfort and safety reasons. There are different models of course, and they are all fine models, each though, is patterned after the One Universal Optimal Bike.

There is only one engineer? So the same engineer designs trains, nuclear powerplants, satellites, cars, aicrafts, ovens AND bikes? Very, very unlikely. I'd prefer to have different engineers, each one specialized in different items.

Also, there is no "only one universal optimal bike"... just as you said right after "there are different models". When you have different models, clearly it's different optimal bikes. And you know why? Because a racing bike is inherently different from a mountain bike (different overall elasticity for one), and the bike my granddad used to carry about 100 kg of books around the city was modeled to do so.

So, the logical need for a SINGLE engineer and a SINGLE optimal bike is still to be proven - if ever possible.

OK. First, yes there are other Nuclear engineers, Train Engineers etc. We are talking about Bikes.... Focus people.

The idea of an Optimal Bike is such that for a given MODEL of a bike, there is an OPTIMAL Assembled specification. Now, because there are different models, there are different specs. But all Bikes resemble a Base Model, call it Bike 1.0.

Now, wrap your minds around this one, because the models are so similar, one manual is sufficient to ensure proper assembly of all models. Who hasnt seen manuals that say "if you have option B, then go to step 4, if not, go to step 7".

[Treznor]

Just because no 2 accounts match doesnt mean it didnt happen. Try getting 10 witnesses to an auto crash to have the same story. The fact that the stories dont match does not mean the crash didnt happen.

It does mean that no one can definitively say that their version of the crash is the correct one. It means that trying to lay blame (or assess rewards) for actions taking during the crash are equally invalid, which is what this "bicycle-building" exercise is ultimately about.

And to the first point, yeah, I'd submit that that was one of the BIG reasons why the Engineer took time out of His busy schedule and visited the town. He was concerned that the people werent making the bikes right, and thier manuals were old, ratty, and had been re-written and re-written over the years. He needed to make FRESH copies of the manuals. This time, He would show them what a Bike was SUPPOSED to look like.

Then it's a shame he failed massively. If the Engineer actually showed up to clarify things, all that was accomplished was even more confusion.

[Risottia]

The idea of an Optimal Bike is such that for a given MODEL of a bike, there is an OPTIMAL Assembled specification. Now, because there are different models, there are different specs. But all Bikes resemble a Base Model, call it Bike 1.0.

Now, wrap your minds around this one, because the models are so similar, one manual is sufficient to ensure proper assembly of all models. Who hasnt seen manuals that say "if you have option B, then go to step 4, if not, go to step 7".

A huge lot of assumptions... and also, that would have a bloody complex manual. Complexity of the instructions often is the prime factor in assembly errors.

Maybe it would be better to assume that different bikes are unrelated to each other, so every model would have the simplest assembly instructions possible => hence, less errors.

Anyway, why would I need a huge manual covering the detail of any kind of bike (though based on the Optimal one) when I just want to build my VERY SPECIFIC bike? Why do I need to peruse through tons of pages detailing about the pedal-to-wheel ratios of a mountain bike if I just want to build an indoor racing bike?

[Neo Art]

aw, my post was conveniently ignored. Shocker.

[Fartsniffage]

I stand corrected. I had am not fluent in idiotic English.

Apparently you're not fluent in regular English either.

[Risottia]

aw, my post was conveniently ignored. Shocker.

I liked it. But I assume it wasn't exactly aimed at me.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Just because no 2 accounts match doesnt mean it didnt happen. Try getting 10 witnesses to an auto crash to have the same story. The fact that the stories dont match does not mean the crash didnt happen.

It does mean that no one can definitively say that their version of the crash is the correct one. It means that trying to lay blame (or assess rewards) for actions taking during the crash are equally invalid, which is what this "bicycle-building" exercise is ultimately about.

And to the first point, yeah, I'd submit that that was one of the BIG reasons why the Engineer took time out of His busy schedule and visited the town. He was concerned that the people werent making the bikes right, and thier manuals were old, ratty, and had been re-written and re-written over the years. He needed to make FRESH copies of the manuals. This time, He would show them what a Bike was SUPPOSED to look like.

Then it's a shame he failed massively. If the Engineer actually showed up to clarify things, all that was accomplished was even more confusion.

"It does mean that no one can definitively say that their version of the crash is the correct one."
Very true, but they are all describing the same crash.

'It means that trying to lay blame (or assess rewards) for actions taking during the crash are equally invalid, which is what this "bicycle-building" exercise is ultimately about."
I am not sure I follow this line.

"Then it's a shame he failed massively. If the Engineer actually showed up to clarify things, all that was accomplished was even more confusion"
Not really a failure. (OK Stretching a bit). The engineer told the ancient Tech Writers that he would eventually show them what a correct bike looks like. Everyone searched and waited for the Engineer, all the while they were bragging that they had the best method for making the bikes. Bike making guilds popped up all over the cities, all making what they thought was the optimal bike.

When the Engineer finally showed up and showed them the correct Bike, it was different enough from thier own bikes that they became offended. They KNEW they had the best Bikes because they were masters at building bikes according to manuals that were handed down from generation to generation. They became so offended that they rejected the Optimal Bike and destroyed it. Not before some humble bike builders decided to actually study the bike and test drive the bike (stretching here , I know) and they relized that, yes, this was the Optimal Bike. They began to study the Bike and make thier own manuals. True, each new bike builder saw the bike a bit differently, but they all got the important details correct. One, though, when questioned, denied he ever saw the bike, but that is a different story.

Those new builders went throughout the town and started teaching people that thier way of building bikes was not the most optimal way. Of course the proud "master" builders got angry and rebuked them. Eventually, they were all killed and the town lost the ability and knowledge to make the optimal bike again.