Delano

Troy you are saying NASA knew. That is only partially true. Management didn't. And they weren't listening to the engineers. I read the report and watched the news report, recently. Feynman said that Nasa had couldn't properly assess the risk. if they could this disaster would have never happened. You can't say NASA knew of the risk. If management didn't know and the engineers did. To me that's a basic point.

The comments are directed towards the decision makers. So yea the engineers had a problem. But all of NASA isnt just engineers. The problem was management. That's who Feynman directed his criticisms.

I don't know if you're beeong intentionally being thick or you just don't understand what I have written.

Awareness is clearly not understanding.

Your comments really underline the difference facts knowledge comprehension and analysis. Morton Thiokol isn't NASA and the engineers aren't decision makers.

Role of Richard FeynmanEdit “ I took this stuff that I got out of your seal and I put it in ice water, and I discovered that when you put some pressure on it for a while and then undo it, it does not stretch back. It stays the same dimension. In other words, for a few seconds at least and more seconds than that, there is no resilience in this particular material when it is at a temperature of 32 degrees. ” — Richard Feynman, [5] One of the commission's best-known members was theoretical physicist Richard Feynman. His style of investigating with his own direct methods rather than following the commission schedule put him at odds with Rogers, who once commented, "Feynman is becoming a real pain." During a televised hearing, Feynman famously demonstrated how the O-rings became less resilient and subject to seal failures at ice-cold temperatures by immersing a sample of the material in a glass of ice water.[5] Feynman's own investigation reveals a disconnect between NASA's engineers and executives that was far more striking than he expected. His interviews of NASA's high-ranking managers revealed startling misunderstandings of elementary concepts. One such concept was the determination of a safety factor.[6]

Here's Richard Feyman's own words. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpDg7MjHps

Perhaps it's the difference between ethics, morality and mores.

@Troy more explaining isn't necessary.

@Cynique if two people are supplied with new facts and information. If one person can make inferences. They understand the subject. The other person just knows or has knowledge of facts. @Mel Hopkins not withstanding your ability. Not everyone can analyze a failure and know what went wrong. When the space shuttle crashed. NASA consulted with Richard Feynman because they couldn't figure out why it crashed. So while NASA is very knowledgeable. Feynman is a brilliant thinker. So I say your hierachy has gained stature in my eyes. Also you're a psychic witch/wizard. So you cant be the barometer.

There were a few women that weren't adverse to trading sex for a promotion.

Where did i say that?

Information is how to get to a destination. You can buy cake ingredients in a store. Facts are like data . knowing the ingredients of a cake. But not the ratios. Understanding involves rationalisation. Knowing not only how to make a cake but how to make a new cake. Pioneer for me understanding is closely related to comprehension. Cynique I can't follow some of your logic. Mel i like the Triangle though I think you can analyse the results of decision without understanding how it was derived

Yes to me that capability is understanding.

Sure but would you say everyone ita intelligent. Everyone can think but is everyone a thinker.

I am not suggesting that i am saying the opposite. Knowing where pneumonia starts in the body is a fact. Knowing why or how is understanding. So i know where pneumonia takes place but i dont know understand its causation. . Knowing where pneumonia starts in the body is a fact. Knowing why or how is understanding. So i know where pneumonia takes place but i don't understand its causation.

If you take your car to an auto mechanic he can tell you what's wrong. That's a fact. However knowing that fact wont help you to fix the problem. People can spit outca lot of numbers without understanding the implication of those numbers. A Macdonald hamburger is 100% meat. That's a fact. However that isnt totally true. It isn't all 100% beef. Some percentage of it is beef. And that percentage is 100% the rest would beef spices herbs and filler. There's a pecking

I would disagree. Comprehension is linked to understanding. Understanding and knowledge are not the same. You can know facts. Knowing how to apply them is related to understanding those facts.

It will all make sense at a later date.

How is that relevant to Pioneer's statement. Since not everyone is intelligent?

Posting footnotes isn't a guarantee either.

It could be both.

Try searching the net. That's what informed the answer. Why take my word whem you can look it up.

You seem to not understand what i have written. When i explained the footnote. Maybe search the internet to see how they calculated the 97%. Or not.

Yes but this is a discussion group. And you are using a less stringent standard, concerning thinking and writing critically .