Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!wilbur.nas.nasa.gov!eugene From: eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Newsgroups: comp.graphics.visualization Subject: Re: Out of the lab, into the classroom Keywords: reuse fabulous Message-ID: <1991Apr4.233022.6191@nas.nasa.gov> Date: 4 Apr 91 23:30:22 GMT References: <1991Apr3.215031.7763@nas.nasa.gov> <1151@durer.cme.nist.gov> <18226@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <1991Apr4.190844.19803@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov Reply-To: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Lines: 103 Some one wrote: |>On the one hand, the synthetic effort necessary to pre-visualize the data |>might lead to new insights. ^^^^^ Science cannot always rely on serendipitous discovery of results. If you need examples, let me know. I know a billion $$ worth. |>On the other hand, scientists may ignore useful data because it doesn't make |>a pretty picture. Speaking from zero knowledge, I would guess that |>grant committees and other investors like pretty pictures. The situation is not simple. 1) Some fields of science train their students to maintain a healthly skepticism. This is because early science derived from alchemy which also yielded the entertainment form of magic: "The hand is quicker than the eye." TV, computer videos, etc. don't help this. 2) Grant committees having scientists are frequently cautious about presentations which are too showy. It makes things harder (sometimes) when you are asking for a lot of money [it can also make certain presentations easier: depends on the field, the project, and the granting organization]. These comments to appear in print shortly. In article <1991Apr4.190844.19803@agate.berkeley.edu> andyr@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Andy Rose) writes: >In article <18226@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> meltsner@crd.ge.com writes: Ken>Visualization can help reduce the information Ken>overload, but it doesn't help with the insight or analysis to make the Ken>conceptual leap from the video to understanding the real world. andy>I thought the whole purpose of visualization was to help with the andy>insights or analysis to make the conceptual leap. Is visualization andy>just for reducing the information overload? What's the difference? Insight is a human thing. The book review I just posted talks about maps as images MUST oversimplify. The real world frequently has too much information, too much distractions (me and the net), etc. Not it is not strictly for reducing overload. The difference is to look at other sciences which have used imaging for a long time. My best examples are cartography, photogrammetry, astronomy, x-ray crystallography, biology, and particle physics. These fields are mathematical (quantitative), visual (qualitative), use stereo, etc. Ken>Visualization people will only be useful when they understand that Ken>they are actually one of the least important parts of the whole Ken>process. Critical, yes, but not the part that actually contributes to Ken>the scientific world or towards a solution of an engineering problem. Take heed of this. It is very true. Ken>My big problem with the concept of visualization as a discipline is Ken>that it sounds surprisingly similar to the basic mistake made by the Ken>expert system shell folks. I am not the only person who has made this observation, as I watch Intell*s and Tek* and certain other AI companies go down various tubes. andy>The 'process' of science seems to place little importance on communicating andy>results to the layman, You MUST make a certain distinction between the graphics used for DISCOVERY versus the graphics used for EDUCATION, MANAGEMENT and NEWS. Support of that FUNDAMENTAL DISCOVERY is EVERYTHING. If you don't discover it: it's just common knowledge. DISCOVERY is a change from an IGNORANT state to a more knowledgeable state. A scientist is a person who must make a difference in the way that others (including his colleagues) cannot. [Galileo, telescope] He is a spark. Sure, he needs funding from his management, a public, etc. But if he does not make that discovery, then the rest is moot. Right? [I know you can see this, just reminding you.] In my discussion with Charles Harris, publisher of Pixel, I have tried to give him examples, my readings, books, journals, even popular magazines, images (mono and stereo) to place on his wall. Here is what I have given him: Peale, et al's article in Science predicting Io vulcanism [published before the Voyager flyby by days] I read/interpreted the mathematics for him. Two Time magazine covers: Warm superconductors, Cold Fusion [One real good science, the other.....] [New knowledge, new ignorance?] A box of old Science A book on stereo aerial photography with viewer Three books by Edgerton on strobe photograph: (his science text book, one coffee table book): strobe, high speed. Two books on Muybridge [one including his biography] A book on space geomorphology. I take some Voyager imagery I forgot tomorrow. ken>made the distinction between useful graphics and management graphics, ken>and the amount of time needed to generate them. Management graphics ken>might take an order of magnitude more time to make, and provide an ken>order of magnitude less information. A good example of useful discovery imagery is x-ray crystallography images. They are totally unintelligable by an untrained eye, but they have a beautiful symmetry (smile 8^). Yet, understanding the geometry and other physical and mathematical properties tell us of a world previously unimaginable. This is how I came up with a question about Watson and Crick and the importance of hard, physical, 3-D models vs. straight imagery. Similar arguments can be made of phase space and frequency space diagrams. Don't get me wrong, images CAN, but will NOT always, clarify. --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene