Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101077 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 20360 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2017 11:04:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 Nov 2017 11:04:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=alice@librelamp.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=alice@librelamp.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain librelamp.com designates 45.79.96.192 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: alice@librelamp.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 45.79.96.192 librelamp.com Received: from [45.79.96.192] ([45.79.96.192:45258] helo=librelamp.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 64/7F-09857-A43910A5 for ; Tue, 07 Nov 2017 06:04:44 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [IPv6:2600:1010:b12b:3b97:d4fa:fe82:4b9e:d42]) by librelamp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2429114B for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:04:40 +0000 (UTC) To: internals@lists.php.net References: <64.21.07742.EF158F95@pb1.pair.com> <71.50.09857.3BBEAF95@pb1.pair.com> <6643d10b-8703-693c-15c2-da338022ef41@rhsoft.net> <18.19.09857.3E54CF95@pb1.pair.com> <941fd347-4a17-78b6-1bd7-4a5519aa722b@rhsoft.net> <67.8E.09857.7D58DF95@pb1.pair.com> <6A.75.09857.9F6EEF95@pb1.pair.com> <55fb932f-7f61-33eb-1fd9-aa425bc6ff27@rhsoft.net> <748869f7-13bb-5bdd-6fec-399a33b790b3@rhsoft.net> Message-ID: <572d0e30-7214-0842-6624-7647514b9ad1@librelamp.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 03:04:40 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC - Array Of for PHP 7 From: alice@librelamp.com (Alice Wonder) On 11/07/2017 02:21 AM, Tony Marston wrote: > > Some things are so obvious that they do not need scientific proof. Some things that appear obvious are incorrect, especially when bias enters. Scientific proof brings human bias out of the equation, or at least reduces it. > For > example, in a motor vehicle the power-to-weight ratio is important as it > affects engine performance and fuel economy. In other words, for a given > engine size the lower the weight of the car and the better the fuel > consumption. The more weight you add the lower the performance. Your car > has a heater which you only use when it's cold. It also has an air > conditioner for when it's hot. It has windscreen wipers, and a motor, > for when it's raining. When the temperature is mild and it's not raining > it means that you are not using any of this equipment, yet you are still > carrying their weight, and this weight is affecting your car's > performance. I do not have to supply any figures as proof as the car > manufacturers keep telling us that cars that weigh less perform better, > which is why they try to reduce the weight of as any components as > possible. You then give an example for which every first year physics students has done experiments which use science to demonstrate it (namely demonstrating how weight impacts friction) Sorry but if something is obvious then it should be able to test in a scientific experiment. It use to be obvious that some animals were closely related until scientific tests were done, showing that they weren't, and we discovers convergent evolution. Sorry, I don't mean to go off topic, but saying the scientific method isn't needed to back up certain claims because they are obvious is a very dangerous point of view.