« | Main | Convincing Analysis »
September 17, 2006
Week 1 reading impressions
After reading the deconstruction of the failed Challenger shuttle launch explanations, I had a good understanding of what made a convincing argument, but it seemed a bit like the author wasn't so sure. The author praised Feynman's explanation, but then critiqued it as scientifically weak for not providing enough control cases as to be actually valid. I found that strange. It certainly wasn't a perfect experiment, but it did demonstrate the basis for the argument.
It was obvious from the photocopies that the original persuading arguments were too vague and poorly displayed to be easily read, even if the reader had had prior knowledge of the subject matter. The displays with the rocket drawings didn't help either. I agreed with the author that the rocket shapes were unnecessary and added too much clutter. Their presence detracted from the usefulness of the evidence.
I have to say that knowing how to properly display data in graph form seems like rudimentary knowledge. I believe we learned those sorts of things in high school, so I find it surprising that engineers, especially NASA engineers, failed to do it correctly.
-Bryan Wall
Posted by Bryan Wall at September 17, 2006 02:43 PM