"Accuracy is a crutch"

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

I think there are rules to fantasy modelling, but they are set by the modeller, so no one else knows them!  And they are subject to change, but they are still rules for a particular time and place.  Brakie, I don't think it is necessarily fair to say that someone who models a fantasy doesn't understnad what other modelers are trying to do.  They just are choosing to do differently.  And we don't always understand that, but I don't think that makes it wrong, as long as they like it.  They aren't claiming it is a model of the real world, it is a model of a world they are creating for themselves.

As far as the topic of accuracy, or anything else, being a crutch, I'd like to turn it inside out a bit.  We are all (many, most, some?) assuming that if that is true (and lots of debate on that) that it is a bad thing.  But if I've got a broken leg (actually on my case it was a destriyed knee, but whatever), and crutch can be a pretty handy thing to have.  It lets us do things we couldn't do without it.  There are very few of us in this hobby who don't use 'crutches' of some sort to get where we want to go.  It's all about compromise, and choosing where we are willing to compromise and where we are not.  Wherther it is accuracy, feeling, looks, fantasy, or whatever, we choose the 'standards' we want to build or operate to to suit us.  So for some accruacy may be the crutch they need to produce a latout that makes them happy.  For someone else it is a flavor they want.  There are no right or wrongs answers to this, at least in my opinion.  And I think it is a shortsighted, or perhaps self-centered view that this sort of thing is hurting the hobby.  the hobby will be hurt if we think everyone needs to do things our way, and that there are not many, many, ways to be satisfied in the hobby.

I'm not going to read all that again, I hope it made sense!

Chip, have you been sampling too much product?  Disappearing tweezers? .... EDIT, oh, it's what's in the tweezers that disappears!  With me it's usually the tools......

 

 

[SpaceMouse]

Sorry,Chip,I still disagree..There are NO rules to fantasy modeling.Fantasy modeling has no direction...

I will concede that as a general category, there are no rules to fantasy modeling.

However, each individual fantasy modeler (and realistic modeler) has their own set of rules. I won't put a cactus on my layout because it is not within my set of rules. You won't put a waterfall on your layout because it is not allowed by your rules. 

If it is the word "rules" that bothers you, perhaps you could subsitute "that which complements your vision" vs "that which detracts from your vision."  

BTW, you cannot say that Furlow has no direction.

[el-capitan]

The difference between a good fantasy layout and a bad fantasy layout is how well the modeler stuck to the vision.

Obviously a person whose rules include plywood is okay for dirt and a shoe box makes a good industry will not have a "good" layout by in either camp, realist or artistic.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

The point I was making is that the tighter your set of rules the more coherent the layout will be, providing you stick to your rules.

But the notion that layouts based on "homemade" rules are better than layouts based on real life rules is complete garbage.

For the past 100 years there is one thing that we can all agree on, it's that in this hobby, accuracy and realism get better every year. That's what people want and that's what we pay for. If we were to prescribe to this notion that realism is killing the hobby it would have been dead long ago.

Are people being turned away because DCC allows them to operate more prototypically? Or were they turned away when Lionel released it's first scale hudson? Both of these things were huge leaps in realism for this hobby but I have never heard anyone refer to the scale hudson as the downfall of Model Railroading.

On the other hand I have heard them say that about missile cars and pastel colored "Fantasy" trains.

[SpaceMouse]

But the notion that layouts based on "homemade" rules are better than layouts based on real life rules is complete garbage.

For the past 100 years there is one thing that we can all agree on, it's that in this hobby, accuracy and realism get better every year. That's what people want and that's what we pay for. If we were to prescribe to this notion that realism is killing the hobby it would have been dead long ago.

Are people being turned away because DCC allows them to operate more prototypically? Or were they turned away when Lionel released it's first scale hudson? Both of these things were huge leaps in realism for this hobby but I have never heard anyone refer to the scale hudson as the downfall of Model Railroading.

On the other hand I have heard them say that about missile cars and pastel colored "Fantasy" trains.

I agree with you.

That said, I don't think Furlow would. My guess is he would say that everyone's rules are "homemade" and every layout is a fantasy. However, there will be some that lean on "accuracy" and "reality" so much that they suppress any chance for the layout to become the ideal fantasy for that person. Instead, it becomes a crutch to insulate themselves from their true fantasy, like the addict that uses drugs or alcohol to insulate themselves from exposing their repressed emotions or traumas.

I admit to taking a lot of liberty in expressing my interpretation of Furlow's viewpoint.    

[selector]

... Instead, it becomes a crutch to insulate themselves from their true fantasy, like the addict that uses drugs or alcohol to insulate themselves from exposing their repressed emotions or traumas.

I admit to taking a lot of liberty in expressing my interpretation of Furlow's viewpoint.    

Wow, we're introducing psychopathology into the discussion.  Is Furlow saying that he thinks modeling reality is a form of pathology?

[SpaceMouse]

... Instead, it becomes a crutch to insulate themselves from their true fantasy, like the addict that uses drugs or alcohol to insulate themselves from exposing their repressed emotions or traumas.

I admit to taking a lot of liberty in expressing my interpretation of Furlow's viewpoint.    

Wow, we're introducing psychopathology into the discussion.  Is Furlow saying that he thinks modelling reality is a form of pathology?

The little voice in my head claiming to be Furlow says so...

The little voice claiming to be Koester just said, "Yo Mama!"

[selector]

Well, in that case, we can accomplish both a reductio ad absurdum and the fallacy of the undistributed middle by saying that since all brain function is directly attributable to chemistry in synapses, and since psychopathology is faulty brain function, railroad modelling takes its effect from psychopathology. 

Oy...I have a headache. 

[on30francisco]

Chip,

Are you siding with Furlow on this because you're also modeling a fantasy Western old-timey layout like Furlow? 

I used the example of gravity, because most of in the Western World except it as fact. However, people growing up with the belief of the physical universe as the ultimate illusion, would not give credence to this "law" and hence would be more inclined to accept levitation. I also knew that for most people reading this forum gravity is cut and dried and levitation is the myth. 

I believe in God, physics, and the Constitution of the United States, and I don't think any of those three items need to conflict with each other.

Nevertheless, I think there are lots of, for example, plane crash victims who might disagree with you that gravity is an illusion.  Certainly, this body force (gravity is a force, not a law) proves itself to me every time I work with tiny screws at my workbench. 

What I haven't figured out is the source of the horizontal acceleration that precedes the fall which is responsible for making the screw miss the workbench and hit the floor.

LOL! and I can't figure out how a little piece of plastic can be in your tweezers one second and vanish from existance the next.

Maybe quantum tunnelling or mini black holes? These phenomena seem to happen in the area around the work bench. They swallow up small parts and transfer them via wormholes to another universe that must be loaded with our lost parts. If there are any model railroaders there, they have a smorgasboard of supplies to choose from. 

[UNIONPACIFIC4018]

Well I would have to say I like both fantasy and reality. I couldn't really care what anyone thinks of my layout but the end function of my layout is this: A place to go where I can forget about uptight corporate crazies whose main function in life is get to the top of some mountain so they can feel important.

 

 

[IRONROOSTER]

When a person decides he wants to make a hot rod, does he go to a boarding stable for ideas?

...

He does if he's Amish.

Irreverently

Paul 

[marknewton]

I know we could go round and round on this as we have in the past. But my argument would be that you are modeling your perception of reality and nothing more. You can not know what is real any more than anyone else can.

Really? According to whom?

The reason I say this so directly is that in any given instance we take into our senses approximately 4,000,000 pieces of information. Our mind filters this down to approximately 2000. The criteria that our mind uses is that we filter the information is to reconstruct our perceptions to align with view of the world--that is what works for us and keeps us sane. Your world is very solid and rigid. Mine is less so. Mine works for me; yours works for you. However, each of us through mental processes of deletion, generalization, and distortion filter out over 99% of our sensory input. And even that doesn't question whether or notour senses are accurate or factor in that we cannot sense a dog whistle or micro-waves.

The best we can do is agree to call our sensation of a particular frequency of light "red" and that math done in a base-10 is accurate. We also develop standards such that the more people that experience something, the more real it becomes. Gravity is an example of an accepted "law" while levitation is an example of a less accepted "law."

Gravity is only real because there's a consensus among those people who fell over? Sorry to say this Chip, but I regard the foregoing as nothing more than a load of new-age twaddle. Or, perhaps more kindly, an expression of your perception of reality. It's certainly not mine.

So I propose that you are modeling your perception of reality--the degree to which others view it as fantasy depends how closely they are aligned with your perceptions.

And I propose that if I model a specific time and place, and it's instantly recognised as such by people who live and work there, I'm modelling a reality that objectively exists independently of my perceptions. If I model a vehicle or building based on accurate measurement and accurate observation, the model is based on objective reality, not my perception of it.

[Dave Vollmer]

Chip,

Have you had formal training in physics?

Just wondering.

Granted Newtonian mechanics don't describe everything, but they do quite well for the macro world we live in.

You may not believe in physics, but physics believes in you.

[SpaceMouse]

Chip,

Have you had formal training in physics?

Just wondering.

Granted Newtonian mechanics don't describe everything, but they do quite well for the macro world we live in.

You may not believe in physics, but physics believes in you.

I had a year of calculus physics about 30 years ago. And if it matters to you and Mark I usually hit the ground when I fall. However, I've got the sneaking suspicion that scientists haven't quite figured out the universe yet. Part of what bothers me the whole observer effect thingy.

I've been doing some studying lately in health and well, it seems things are getting stirred up a bit. It seems that a group of scientists decided that if quantum mechanics could be applied to physics and chemistry then may be we should look at biology and physiology as energy. The whole concept is not going well with die-hard Newtonian medicine. (Issac not Mark) It doesn't work well with the double-blind one-pill-one-disease paradigm.  Humans as energetic beings--what poppy-****! Of course the Chinese are saying they've known that for 3000 years. I admit that that particular turmoil may be coloring my logic. I wouldn't call it New Age though--that was the 80's. This particular movement started more like the mid-90's. 

I figure about the time we as a people accept quantum mechanics some other paradigm will come along and we'll have to learn the world all over.  

I guess I just can't see human knowledge as static. But if anyone thinks they have it nailed perfectly, I salute you.   

[jecorbett]

I've been away all day and now that I've gotten back into this thread, something has struck me about the original premise of Malcolm Furlow regarding Tony Koester's approach to the hobby. It is pretty arrogant. Furlow seems to be saying that his approach is the right way to approach the hobby and that those who strive for realistic layouts are wrong. I dare say that many modelers strive for the type of realistic layouts that Tony Koester promotes and very few would want to build something resembling Malcolm Furlow's efforts. Furlow's approach may be fine for him, but frankly, I'd get out of the hobby before I would build anything resembling what he has done. It does nothing for me. Trackwork that seems to be clinging to the sides of a cliff looks pretty comical. That's fine if it floats his boat, but who is he to say this is the kind of layout that we should be striving for. I don't see that kind of work drawing in new modelers or keeping others interested. I'd cancel my subscription to MR if layouts like that became a regular feature. Realism is what appeals to most modelers. The more a model railroad looks like the real thing, the greater the WOW factor. Furlow is just way off base if he really said accuracy is a crutch.

[Dave-the-Train]

I haven't read all the stuff you've generated by your provocative (if salient ) post Spacemouse.  I'd just say "Chill" and "Do your own thing".  Life's too short to be any kind of puritan.

As Marvin says "Life?  Don't talk to me about it..."

PS  Anyone who doesn't know who Marvin is go to Amazon and find "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" trilogy in four parts.  (No, this isn't advertising - It's cultural extension).

[Metro Red Line]

LOL! and I can't figure out how a little piece of plastic can be in your tweezers one second and vanish from existance the next.

 

It's called kinetic energy! 

[FJ and G]

I've watched Furlow's layouts improve over time, culminating in his greatest work of art, the Mexican Hat Canyon. MR ran it a few years ago half built. MR, please show us the completed work or update us on his latest work!

[Midnight Railroader]

Art, it may be, but a model of a railroad, it is not.

[Dave Vollmer]

Chip,

Have you had formal training in physics?

Just wondering.

Granted Newtonian mechanics don't describe everything, but they do quite well for the macro world we live in.

You may not believe in physics, but physics believes in you.

I had a year of calculus physics about 30 years ago. And if it matters to you and Mark I usually hit the ground when I fall. However, I've got the sneaking suspicion that scientists haven't quite figured out the universe yet. Part of what bothers me the whole observer effect thingy.

I figure about the time we as a people accept quantum mechanics some other paradigm will come along and we'll have to learn the world all over.  

I guess I just can't see human knowledge as static. But if anyone thinks they have it nailed perfectly, I salute you.   

Chip...  Most of us scientists do accept quantum mechanics (Einstein being a notable exception), but at the sub-atomic level where they belong.  Certainly knowledge is not static.  We're still looking for a workable Unified Field Theory.

But, again, I think most of us have to take it as truth that gravity exists.  Because it does.  What else accelerates you at 9.81 m/s^2 toward the center of the earth?

[jktrains]

But the notion that layouts based on "homemade" rules are better than layouts based on real life rules is complete garbage.

For the past 100 years there is one thing that we can all agree on, it's that in this hobby, accuracy and realism get better every year. That's what people want and that's what we pay for. If we were to prescribe to this notion that realism is killing the hobby it would have been dead long ago.

Are people being turned away because DCC allows them to operate more prototypically? Or were they turned away when Lionel released it's first scale hudson? Both of these things were huge leaps in realism for this hobby but I have never heard anyone refer to the scale hudson as the downfall of Model Railroading.

On the other hand I have heard them say that about missile cars and pastel colored "Fantasy" trains.

I agree with you.

That said, I don't think Furlow would. My guess is he would say that everyone's rules are "homemade" and every layout is a fantasy. However, there will be some that lean on "accuracy" and "reality" so much that they suppress any chance for the layout to become the ideal fantasy for that person. Instead, it becomes a crutch to insulate themselves from their true fantasy, like the addict that uses drugs or alcohol to insulate themselves from exposing their repressed emotions or traumas.

I admit to taking a lot of liberty in expressing my interpretation of Furlow's viewpoint.    

Spacemouse, have you ever spoken to Malcolm Furlow about his philosophy in modeling?  You seem to be speaking for him and putting words in his mouth, which I'd say is grossly unfair and irresponsible of you.  I've meet Tony Koester before, talked to him about modeling and have had even operate train on a modular group I belong to.  I also take part in a dicsussion group in which he is a regular participant, but I would NEVER consider posting messages trying to represent what his philosophy is or what he would say about a topic unless he specifically said to do so.

Stop passing off your opinions as what you think Furlow would do or say.  State your opinions as your opinions and stop trying to hide behind someone else.

 

[SpaceMouse]

But the notion that layouts based on "homemade" rules are better than layouts based on real life rules is complete garbage.

For the past 100 years there is one thing that we can all agree on, it's that in this hobby, accuracy and realism get better every year. That's what people want and that's what we pay for. If we were to prescribe to this notion that realism is killing the hobby it would have been dead long ago.

Are people being turned away because DCC allows them to operate more prototypically? Or were they turned away when Lionel released it's first scale hudson? Both of these things were huge leaps in realism for this hobby but I have never heard anyone refer to the scale hudson as the downfall of Model Railroading.

On the other hand I have heard them say that about missile cars and pastel colored "Fantasy" trains.

I agree with you.

That said, I don't think Furlow would. My guess is he would say that everyone's rules are "homemade" and every layout is a fantasy. However, there will be some that lean on "accuracy" and "reality" so much that they suppress any chance for the layout to become the ideal fantasy for that person. Instead, it becomes a crutch to insulate themselves from their true fantasy, like the addict that uses drugs or alcohol to insulate themselves from exposing their repressed emotions or traumas.

I admit to taking a lot of liberty in expressing my interpretation of Furlow's viewpoint.    

Spacemouse, have you ever spoken to Malcolm Furlow about his philosophy in modeling?  You seem to be speaking for him and putting words in his mouth, which I'd say is grossly unfair and irresponsible of you.  I've meet Tony Koester before, talked to him about modeling and have had even operate train on a modular group I belong to.  I also take part in a dicsussion group in which he is a regular participant, but I would NEVER consider posting messages trying to represent what his philosophy is or what he would say about a topic unless he specifically said to do so.

Stop passing off your opinions as what you think Furlow would do or say.  State your opinions as your opinions and stop trying to hide behind someone else.

Wait a second. In the post above I said I agreed with you, but I didn't think Furlow would. I also admitted taking liberties with my interpretation of what Furlow said. In a post before in this thread that I stated that I like taking a point of view as a intellectual exercise to see where it leads. 

I'm not sure why you think I am reprenting my views as Furlows. 

If you want my view stated flat out it is this. I think of model railroading as art, but I don't need others to think that way. My layout is a Louis L'Amour version of the Old West--It varies from reality in several ways--the breweries of the time were mostly local and does not ship like modern ones do. Bear Wiz Beer ships. A mine would clear cut all the treees within miles of the mine, I kept my trees standing, I have a lot of buildings with false fronts; false fronts cost money and not everyon spent the money on them. OF course, the railroad itself is freelance. There are more deviations, but they are of similar magnitude.   

But it is set up for operations. I plan on setting up a round-robin type operating circle as soon as they are doable. I wouldn't do Mark Newton's style of railriading, but I respect his work. It is quite good. I think it is very artistic, and I mean that as a complment, but it is also very accurate.    

[SpaceMouse]

Chip...  Most of us scientists do accept quantum mechanics (Einstein being a notable exception), but at the sub-atomic level where they belong.  Certainly knowledge is not static.  We're still looking for a workable Unified Field Theory.

But, again, I think most of us have to take it as truth that gravity exists.  Because it does.  What else accelerates you at 9.81 m/s^2 toward the center of the earth?

When I said most people take gravity as Law but people who levitate would disagree, I was being argumentative. You had to know that. If people levitate, and there is anecdotal evidence that some yogis do, it merely means that I don't know how they do it, not that gravity doesn't exist. 

Like you said, Newtonian physics works well in the macro-world, but I'm not so sure we can write off Quantum Mechanics to sub atomic levels. (Okay, I know I am on shaky ground here because by definition it is limited to sub-atomic levels.) At any rate, I'm not so sure that matter is a solid as it has been believed to be. And if it is not, that changes all the rules.

On the other hand, I realize that it doesn't make sense to live in anything but a Newtonian world. A rock thrown at me will still hurt if I forget to duck. Speculating that the world is not solid is therefore relegated to an intellectual exercise and as yet I've found no practical applications.   

But I like to keep open to possibilities though, because as soon as you form an opinion, you limit yourself to it.

[Dave-the-Train]

LOL! and I can't figure out how a little piece of plastic can be in your tweezers one second and vanish from existance the next.

It's called kinetic energy! 

...and there I was thinking that it was wormholes in space/time and/or the Infinite Improbability Factor...

[Midnight Railroader]

If people levitate, and there is anecdotal evidence that some yogis do, it merely means that I don't know how they do it, not that gravity doesn't exist. 

That's a load of peanut butter, and you lose credibility by suggesting that just because some people say they saw it (which is what the phrase "anecdotal evidence" means), it might actually be true.

But I like to keep open to possibilities though, because as soon as you form an opinion, you limit yourself to it.

Yeah, I read Richard Bach in high school, too.

[Dave-the-Train]

Chip...  ?

 

But I like to keep open to possibilities though, because as soon as you form an opinion, you limit yourself to it.

Oh no you don't!  Now that women have equality we can change our minds as often as they do.  (With their permission of course).

That said... you only limit yourself to only thinking "inside the box" [management speak ] if you sit inside and nail the lid on... which is pretty hard to do... which makes it all the more incredible the number of people that do, do it and then spend masses of energy keeping their personal lid shut tight.

[loathar]

To count rivets or not to count rivets...That is the question. (anybody got any asprin?)

I'm going to go do some realistic scenery on my fantasy layout.

[SpaceMouse]

If people levitate, and there is anecdotal evidence that some yogis do, it merely means that I don't know how they do it, not that gravity doesn't exist. 

That's a load of peanut butter, and you lose credibility by suggesting that just because some people say they saw it (which is what the phrase "anecdotal evidence" means), it might actually be true.

But I like to keep open to possibilities though, because as soon as you form an opinion, you limit yourself to it.

Yeah, I read Richard Bach in high school, too.

Did Bach say that? Cool.

Don't take this stuff personally. Maybe Myth-busters will do a show on it and we can all sleep easier.  

[Dave-the-Train]

If people levitate, and there is anecdotal evidence that some yogis do, it merely means that I don't know how they do it, not that gravity doesn't exist. 

That's a load of peanut butter, and you lose credibility by suggesting that just because some people say they saw it (which is what the phrase "anecdotal evidence" means), it might actually be true.

But I like to keep open to possibilities though, because as soon as you form an opinion, you limit yourself to it.

Yeah, I read Richard Bach in high school, too.

What have you go against levitation?

With a stomach like mine I can gather ample evidence of it most mornings I work at the factory.  Colleagues levitate right out the truck cab in no time.  They're not unknown to levitate right out the back while we're loading...

Forget Jonathon Livingstone and read "Stranger to the Ground".  Then again, if you put the two together maybe Vietnam wasn't the first place weed was being past around...

[MidlandPacific]

Chip...  Most of us scientists do accept quantum mechanics (Einstein being a notable exception), but at the sub-atomic level where they belong.  Certainly knowledge is not static.  We're still looking for a workable Unified Field Theory.

But, again, I think most of us have to take it as truth that gravity exists.  Because it does.  What else accelerates you at 9.81 m/s^2 toward the center of the earth?

When I said most people take gravity as Law but people who levitate would disagree, I was being argumentative. You had to know that. If people levitate, and there is anecdotal evidence that some yogis do, it merely means that I don't know how they do it, not that gravity doesn't exist. 

Like you said, Newtonian physics works well in the macro-world, but I'm not so sure we can write off Quantum Mechanics to sub atomic levels. (Okay, I know I am on shaky ground here because by definition it is limited to sub-atomic levels.) At any rate, I'm not so sure that matter is a solid as it has been believed to be. And if it is not, that changes all the rules.

On the other hand, I realize that it doesn't make sense to live in anything but a Newtonian world. A rock thrown at me will still hurt if I forget to duck. Speculating that the world is not solid is therefore relegated to an intellectual exercise and as yet I've found no practical applications.   

But I like to keep open to possibilities though, because as soon as you form an opinion, you limit yourself to it.

Chip, there's a point that I think you're missing here.  We don't say that there's a "Newtonian world" that's distinct from a "Quantum world."  Newtonian physics, whether done with algebra or calculus, is just a model we use to describe observed phenomena; it's not a structure that confines our thinking, it's a mathematical method of describing what's really happening. 

It's not really a question of being open or closed-minded; it's more a question of distinguishing the difference between observed reality and speculation.  I don't think people's minds are necessarily closed to the possibility that there could be levitation, they just recognize that without some concrete proof, it doesn't reach the level of theory, let alone law - it's speculation. 

 

 

[el-capitan]

Did I miss something? Are there levitating people on the San Juan? If not this whole things seems to be WAAAAYYY off topic for a MR forum.