James Newton, Host wrote:

>> If there is not, what does this distinction exactly mean for you?
 
> E.g. "This is better, no that is better" without any WHY it is better
> and without any qualifier that this is opinion. 

IMO this is closer to the core of a good discussion. But even here the
limits are not so clear.

For me, the things I can /know/ are not really the things I need most of
the help. I can look up which status bits get set by a certain command.
That's the easy part. The most valuable help comes in areas that are not so
well-knowable: like the experience that maybe in certain (unknown)
situations one or the other bit may not get set as expected and documented.
That may not be a "knowable" in the sense that the one writing about such
an experience could offer clear, repeatable conditions, it's also not
something where a "why" would or even could be offered, but it may be
enormously helpful to get even the idea that something like this may be
going on.


>> Maybe the unknowable does have its place in engineering? 
> 
> Certainly. But not on the PICList please. <GRIN>

I'd say the question "what is the standard PNP switching transistor these
days?" is definitely an unknowable, as there is not one clear criterion
that defines /the/ standard PNP switching transistor. Yet the answers
provide helpful insight in what's common these days for certain people, and
correlating that with other information about the type and depth of the
work of these people actually can make that information helpful for you
(and me). 

For me it's to a large degree this and similar types of the "unknowable"
that makes this list such a valuable resource. Experience can be seen, in a
way, as accumulated "feeling" about the unknowable (as opposed to e.g.
"knowledge" gained from reading data sheets), and the collective experience
that we all can tap into here is something I wouldn't want to miss. 


> In the entire thread on top vs bottom posting, there was not one
> reference to an e.g. university study where one type was shown to cause
> less confusion or take less time... There were some examples where you
> could repeat that for yourself and see if it worked for you, [...]

Even though that was not about something "knowable" on the surface, I think
Xiaofan (and of course everybody else :) has gotten a good insight in what
a few more outspoken people think and feel about the issue. In many cases,
that's as good as it gets, and that's good enough then. The fact that there
haven't been cited any studies doesn't mean much. As you say, there were
given examples and reasons you can try out for yourself. You can read the
list messages differently now and start analyzing "ah, this is this style
and it has that effect" and so on -- and make your own study. Better than
citing some study that was created to justify a pre-conceived result :)


Just a few thoughts, not to make your life as admin more difficult, but to
maybe add a bit to the clarification of what could be seen as worthwhile
and helpful and what not -- and that the "knowable" nature of the issue or
argument may not be all (or not even the most important) there is to it.
Maybe we get to the bottom of it one day :)

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist