1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Scientific Illiteracy

  1. May 1, 2017 #21

    But your rant that the educators in science and tech need to do better would only be valid if, say, you HAD spoken to one of their trained and educated R&D guys, and they themselves didn't know the answer. Or gave you a wrong one. To rant because a non-scientifically trained customer support worker bee adhered to company policy in speaking with you in no way denigrates of even fairly appraises the scientific educators.

    Your rant would make more sense if it were decrying the company's policy. But as such, you are really just picking on the wrong people to criticize.

    Hope this helps.

    VB
     
  2. May 1, 2017 #22
    As I said, the rep conferred with their R&D dept. and relayed their response. So apparently it is the company's policy. And don't you think someone who represents a technical lighting company should have some understanding of the product line? If not her fault, then certainly the people who put her in that position. And she was resistant to even consider what I was saying to her.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2017
  3. May 1, 2017 #23
    I think I've come off as too harsh in this thread so I want to apologize for that. I don't mean to berate you. That is not helpful. However, I do stand by my idea that the events described are probably caused by bureaucracy rather than scientific illiteracy. That's especially true since the lab guy was consulted.

    Either way, don't let my vitriol earlier in this thread get you down. I'm working on changing that, since it is usually counter-productive to sharing ideas. This isn't the marine corps, so I should lose the Drill-Instructor attitude :)
     
  4. May 1, 2017 #24
    I am glad that you posted this because I was getting ready to return fire. :wink:

    By the way, I had a long career in R&D. I was involved in patent filings and NDA's and have a fairly good idea of what is "proprietary" information. Maybe it's bureaucracy rather than scientific illiteracy, but if their stance was as you are suggesting, they would not have told me, in writing !!!, that the bulb emits "no UV" because they would worry that someone would measure 0.05% emission at 399 nm and sue them. So they are not even consistent.

    You may have the last word, and then I would ask the mods to close this thread.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2017
  5. May 1, 2017 #25
    I think she probably knew enough about her product line to answer most usual consumer questions. Admit it, spectral output is pushing it a bit. I'm not even sure what you mean. And I have a STEM degree. If you're speaking of the candle power or lumens or the equivalence in wattage emitted by a conventional bulb, then she would get that info for you. Or warranty stuff, power supply, battery, etc. But WTF is spectral output? Are you referring to the particular wavelength of the emitted light beam? If so, you need to know that a very small percentage of buyers would ever ask that.

    And who is to say the r&d guy didn't know the answer. I think you're just angry they wouldn't give it to you, do you're attacking their qualifications. Get over it. Find the answer yourself.
     
  6. May 1, 2017 #26
    I don't think a spectral distribution curve it's asking too much from a technical lighting company that produces component LED's and publishes that very same information for all those products. I can't tell from your post whether you don't actually know what a spectral output is, or are just saying that other people wouldn't know it.

    Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "who is to say the r&d guy didn't know the answer." He didn't say he didn't know it, he said it was proprietary. I'm not angry they wouldn't give it to me, I'm just perplexed by them saying it was proprietary.

    By the way, since you are relatively new to PF, I should point out that we try to have a welcoming, friendly environment here without people making personal judgments about the psychological state of other posters or telling them to "get over it." If you are more used to a confrontational type of forum, perhaps somewhere else would be better suited to your requirements.
     
  7. May 1, 2017 #27

    No, I admitted I'm not sure what you mean by spectral output. And so what? Who cares? As I said the question is beyond the normal scope for 95% of consumers.

    Doubt me? Do this...find me one ad for an LED for the public that uses the term spectral output..just one, and you win!

    So if you want to pay yourself on the back by thinking this makes you smarter than the rest of us in this area, do be it. Enjoy! LOL. Frankly, you are coming across as tedious. Just my opinion. I am guessing the customer support gal agreed! LOL.

    This will be my last post here, as I am getting off topic. As well as trying not to laugh. You remind me of an undergrad student who just learned a new word and wants to flaunt it.

    I've also been a member for a year.
     
  8. May 1, 2017 #28
    You fail again to recognize that the company in question also provides component LED's for technical applications and so it's not beyond reason to ask them about this particular bulb. They should be used to dealing with the other 5% of people.

    Of course it won't be contained in an ad, but I gave a link above where G.E. provides such curves for a wide range of their consumer bulbs. It should be available and if not, just say it's not available.

    Again with the ad hominem attacks. If anyone is tedious, it is you. For the ten millionth time, my only objection was their saying the information is proprietary, which it cannot be. And I don't think talking about a spectral distribution curve is being pedantic on a PHYSICS FORUM !! You claim not to know what it is but that doesn't stop you from posting in this thread and offering opinions. Very strange.

    I am too polite to say what you remind me of. So you have been a member for a year and have 17 posts? Were all those posts created just to attack other people?

    MODERATORS: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD !!!!!
     
  9. May 1, 2017 #29

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Thread closed for Moderation...
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Scientific Illiteracy
  1. Scientific Literacy (Replies: 3)

Loading...