Failure of Terms

Two Day. The sky is trying to drool. Moderate air temperature and the gym was sparse. The podcast episodes, one of the Guardian’s Science podcast on a history of science in France during the Revolution, and a scattering from NPR sources, were more than acceptable. I doubt I shall rush off and purchase the book but the interview was both engaging and moderately informative.

Although I do disagree with the author on the boundary between science and engineering. And for once I seem to be more exacting and divisive than the academic.

Point in case. Determining that “Irish” potatoes are a good food source for humans is largely science; proliferating the agriculture of those potatoes is engineering. 

Another point: Determining that a lightning rod diverts lightning and protects houses and people is science; proliferating lightning rods on buildings is engineering.

I have also been considering an article [Link] entitled ” Why is simpler better? ” and marveling at its failure. Smply put, nowhere in the article – that I can find – is simple defined or explained. What is simple? Low entropy? Or few states? The two are not quite the same.

So in considering this, I have to iterate around meanings that are implied and assumed but unsupported,