Re: Science of cycling still largely mysterious

On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:57:26 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 5/21/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/21/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 21 May 2025 00:09:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
>
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012

>
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know
something I
go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about
stuff
I have no need to know.

>
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is
bliss!

>
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need
to know.

>
>
ignorance
noun
ig·?no·?rance ?ig-n(?-)r?n(t)s
Synonyms of ignorance
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or
awareness

>
I see, so by that definition you're ignorant because you don't know
how to write C++ code, sail a boat, scuba dive, or skin and butcher a
deer.

>
Yes, dumbass. I can't speak for others but I'm ignorant of sailing,
scuba diving, or butchering (I know enough about C++ to be dangerous).
>
>

Such a simplistic thinker! It should be obvious that a person can be
ignorant of some topics but not others. And even regarding one topic,
ignorance is not binary. One can know certain facts about a topic but be
ignorant of other facts.

>
simplistic thinking at it's worst.
>

 
I've done some of the things you listed, and have been curious enough to
learn a bit about others by reading and/or discussing them with others.
 
But "I've little time for learning about stuff I have no need to know"
shows a general lack of curiosity, which leads to a general lack of
knowledge - as evidenced in our discussions! It makes for a dull person.
 
Contrast with, say, Andrew Muzi, who had no need to learn as much
history as he obviously knows. John Slocomb who had no need to learn how
to build a bike frame... and all the countless people who pursue their
own interests, their own art, their own pastimes. Hell, I had no real
need to learn machining, welding, music, woodworking and more. But life
is much richer with more knowledge.
 
(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned
anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)

>
I'm not surprised at all by that. Granted most people who have had any
contemporary/classical education (even done outside of any formal
academia) are familiar with Stoicism, I don't see it outside the realm
of possibility that a reasonably educated person may be ignorant of it.
>
In my case I became aware of Stoicism when I was exploring different
religious philosophies. For a time in college I dated a woman who was a
self-described Stoic. Eventually I tired of her lack of passion for
pretty much anything.
>
What I do find astonishing is that any person with any form of education
(even done outside of any formal academia) is so ignorant on the concept
of ignorance.
>
By that metric (and that metric alone) floriduh dumbass is rather
astonishing.
>

"In my case I became aware of Stoicism when I was exploring different
religious philosophies."

The philosophies of cultures have never interested me. I'm far more
interested in the cultures itself, rather than a philosophical
analysis of it.

People do things, say things, and believe things because they do, say,
and believe in those things. I'm way more interested in the why,
rather than in how to define it.

--
C'est bon
Soloman