Perceived Brightness Index

Science is not the study of what is, but rather, WHY it is. Also, the term "science" is so broad that encorporating a comprehensive curriculum would require at least a year for an average human. Therefore, I confidently declare that "science class" in anything pre-high school to be a farce, and it is unfortunate that "science" has been reduced to book teaching rather than investigative free thinking.
 
Last edited:
Science is not the study of what is, but rather, WHY it is. Also, the term "science" is so broad that encorporating a comprehensive curriculum would require at least a year for an average human. Therefore, I confidently declare that "science class" in anything pre-high school to be a farce, and it is unfortunate that "science" has been reduced to book teaching rather than investigative free thinking.

I think the most important thing to teach about science actually, would be the scientific method itself.

The ability to think critically and logically, understand variables, set up problems, and how to test a hypothesis, etc...would be a lifelong skill.

Armed with that, students would be able to learn the rest.

So, it would not be a farce, so much as an introduction on how to tell how the world works.

The rest would be filling in details.

:D

BTW - I'd say science is geared more to how, than why...as why, to me, sounds more like philosophy.

:D
 
I think the most important thing to teach about science actually, would be the scientific method itself.

The ability to think critically and logically, understand variables, set up problems, and how to test a hypothesis, etc...would be a lifelong skill.

Armed with that, students would be able to learn the rest.

So, it would not be a farce, so much as an introduction on how to tell how the world works.

The rest would be filling in details.

:D

BTW - I'd say science is geared more to how, than why...as why, to me, sounds more like philosophy.

:D

True! But the why is the ultimate question to ask, as "how" becomes a why with a "how so", or a "how come". Completely agree with the education on scientific methodology..works every time, all the time.
 
True! But the why is the ultimate question to ask, as "how" becomes a why with a "how so", or a "how come". Completely agree with the education on scientific methodology..works every time, all the time.

If you mean "why" as in how does it work, etc, yes. (IE: Why does that shape encourage the Bernoulli effect?)

If you mean "why" as a philosophical question, then no. I'm OK with philosophy, its just not part of the scientific method. (IE: Why are we here, what is our purpose?)

:D

That the kids NEED to learn logic too, well, that's an entirely neglected part of modern education for most kids.

If they combined logic and the scientific method, we would have a much much more powerful system. (As opposed to say, teaching creationism and producing students who think the world is 6k years old, etc)
 
Last edited:
I'm a simple, ignorant (uneducated) mind. I would love to have a light like the Nitecore TM16 with OTF of 16k lumen. I'm happy to wait.
 
Logic is sometimes subjective dependent on perception... If we had no knowlege of the inverse squares and brightness ratings, it would be impossible to logically deduce the true brightness. As you've said, logic and science do indeed go hand in hand. (Common sense too)
 
Science, Philosophy, Logic, and Mathematics are all interrelated.
 
Logic is sometimes subjective dependent on perception... If we had no knowlege of the inverse squares and brightness ratings, it would be impossible to logically deduce the true brightness. As you've said, logic and science do indeed go hand in hand. (Common sense too)

Well, no, logic is a set of rules used to evaluate the potential truth of something....as in, is it a valid, or invalid argument?

This comes into play if for example a claim is made. How to tell if its a flawed argument or not...is up to the rules of logic.

Logic will not, in of itself, answer all questions...or even tell you if the argument's premises or conclusion are true or not...but, the validity of an argument is based upon the logic.

IE: A light with higher lumens is brighter. A brighter light can shine further. Therefore, a light with higher lumens shines further.

That argument has two premises, and a conclusion. If you understand logic, you would for example, be able to classify the type of fallacy that was involved, and recognize it....even if you didn't know what lumens were or what made a light shine farther, etc.

You would see that it was structured as an invalid argument, and know that the conclusion MIGHT be false.


So, you can scientifically arrive at your data, and then make a claim or conclusion, based upon it...and, be wrong. The data may be right, but the conclusion drawn from the interpretation can be more easily wrong, if logic is not applied properly.


The sky is blue, measured at 445 nm in wavelength. Blueberries are blue, measured at 445 nm wavelength. Therefore, the sky is made of blueberries.

:D
 
Last edited:
While trying to stay neutral in this thread (yes pun intended) I thought this pic would showcase why the word lumens isn't always the best guage.


^^ note the one with more lumens isn't brighter at a distance according to the manufacturer.
Or rather the higher lumen light has less candela.
 
It's simple .... never ever talk about lumens with flashlights. Lumens are great if you are lighting a room by bouncing a light off a ceiling. In almost every other circumstance, it's a near useless term. People get hung up on lumens, home built integrating spheres, etc. .... all of little use for flashlights.

Candela and approximately beam angle (50% of max candela), or better yet, plot of candela by beam angle. That is what matters for a flashlight. The perceived brightness index is a good concept, just replace the near meaningless lumens with lux if you are measuring at a surface, or candela if you are measuring a flashlight.


Great post by SemiMan!
 
The sky is blue, measured at 445 nm in wavelength. Blueberries are blue, measured at 445 nm wavelength. Therefore, the sky is made of blueberries.

:D

Science, Philosophy, Logic, and Mathematics combined a 100 years ago to form Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity which was 10 years after his Special Theory of Relativity.

If ever you want to confuse someone's 'state of certainty' mention Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

:)
 

Latest posts

Top