Even armchair generals can easily see obvious mistakes made by experienced soldiers in the field during the battle, when they have the opportunity to review the records of what happened.
The facts speak for themselves; I'm just pointing them out. For all her experience, she did not find anything relevant to the problem she was attempting to solve, and did not, on her own, recognize an obvious potential solution to another well known problem. The fact that another researcher, on hearing her comments, pointed it out suggests the idea wasn't that difficult to arrive at.
If I were an 'experienced' sergeant who got results of that caliber, I don't think I'd want to turn my back on any of the men forced to serve under me (although, of course, such an obtuse sergeant would probably not perceive the danger).
Your comment, while pithy, ignores the facts. I am not asking you to trust your life to my observations; simply pointing out an example of obvious failure within the existing system. Yet your comments suggest you would trust your life to someone with 'experience', even if past experience of their actions suggests they may be incompetent. What leads you to conclude that one type of experience is more valid than the other?
She presumably had years of education and work experience. She was also presumably exposed to logic and deductive reasoning, although none of us is in a position to say how often or well she employed them. In this example, however, what did all these resources do for her?
1: She wasn't working on the problem she solved, so if all the buildup led to this, she spent all those years running very hard down the wrong path. All the buildup should have led to the solution she was seeking, not an answer to a different problem.
2: When she stumbled on an answer to an obvious problem, even if it was not the one she was trying to solve, she nearly missed the point; in fact she would have if someone else hadn't pointed out the obvious to her.
Applying logic and deductive reasoning to the above, I'd say the woman in question didn't get much use out of her education, her work experience, logic, or deductive reasoning. It was pure dumb luck, as well as a very good illustration of the point that education and work experience by themselves don't make someone capable of anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Even armchair generals can easily see obvious mistakes made by experienced soldiers in the field during the battle, when they have the opportunity to review the records of what happened.
The facts speak for themselves; I'm just pointing them out. For all her experience, she did not find anything relevant to the problem she was attempting to solve, and did not, on her own, recognize an obvious potential solution to another well known problem. The fact that another researcher, on hearing her comments, pointed it out suggests the idea wasn't that difficult to arrive at.
If I were an 'experienced' sergeant who got results of that caliber, I don't think I'd want to turn my back on any of the men forced to serve under me (although, of course, such an obtuse sergeant would probably not perceive the danger).
Your comment, while pithy, ignores the facts. I am not asking you to trust your life to my observations; simply pointing out an example of obvious failure within the existing system. Yet your comments suggest you would trust your life to someone with 'experience', even if past experience of their actions suggests they may be incompetent. What leads you to conclude that one type of experience is more valid than the other?
She presumably had years of education and work experience. She was also presumably exposed to logic and deductive reasoning, although none of us is in a position to say how often or well she employed them. In this example, however, what did all these resources do for her?
1: She wasn't working on the problem she solved, so if all the buildup led to this, she spent all those years running very hard down the wrong path. All the buildup should have led to the solution she was seeking, not an answer to a different problem.
2: When she stumbled on an answer to an obvious problem, even if it was not the one she was trying to solve, she nearly missed the point; in fact she would have if someone else hadn't pointed out the obvious to her.
Applying logic and deductive reasoning to the above, I'd say the woman in question didn't get much use out of her education, her work experience, logic, or deductive reasoning. It was pure dumb luck, as well as a very good illustration of the point that education and work experience by themselves don't make someone capable of anything.