Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: snippage As anyone who understands formal logic knows, reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of evaluating the validity of an assertion. It works like this: An assertion is analyzed by logical methods, and if the result is an absurdity, the original statement must be false. Or absurd! I like to apply this logic to as much as possible in life. And many ideas do not fare well! Exactly. more snippage Yup. And the way it's being done is a little step at a time - just like other requirements were eliminated. Like nonrenewable entry level licenses, tests conducted by the FCC from a nonpublished test pool, experience requirements, etc. And of course there's debate as to whether the old way was better. As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. Of course. But does that mean *all* hams must be *forced* to do some, just to get the license? Can't technical learning stand on its own merits without a Federally mandated welfare/support program? Part of our B&P is public service comms, but there's no requirement that hams learn how to do them or participate in them to get or keep a license. We are effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements, I think you mean "all"... so how hard a stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any technical knowledge, too...?!?! More important - how can those arguments be countered? IMO, the only way to counter them is to attempt a consensus of just how much "quality" and technical acumen is desired in a Ham. But even that will not *prove* that the requirements for a license need to be such-and-so. For example, we can get a consensus that it's desirable for all hams to know Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil. Does that mean Morse code, CPR, and the formula for inductance of a single-layer solenoid coil *must* be test requirements? Of course not! It's what you and I are doing yapping about what Ham radio might become. It's what Hans is doing. I don't like everything he proposes, but I could live with it. I like some of the things Hans proposes and dislike other things. The biggest problem I see in his proposals are the We have to bark about every attempt at reducing the knowledge or skills needed to become a Ham. We need to also guard against trying to set the bar too high - though I doubt that that will be much of a problem! Some say that the bar is already too high. For example, Hans' proposal says that it's necessary and reasonable for all hams to have to pass the Extra written to stay on the air more than 10 years, but that it's *not* necessary or reasonable to require any code test at all. When a VEC group publishes what they want the ARS to become, and what they want is a drastic reduction in knowledge, at the same time granting priveliges for that reduction, we have to yell loud and strong. I'd say we have to present strong, reasoned arguments. We have to realize that when we are told to shut up, it means that our arguments are good, and that "shut up" is the best argument the other side has to give. Exactly. Which is perhaps the most important point of this whole exercise. Note how many times I've been told to shut up about this, called "poster boy for NTI" and other names, etc. Says a lot, doesn't it? We have to realize that while we may lose this fight no matter how hard we work at it, if we sit still and shut up, there is no doubt of the outcome. Entropy will take over. Maybe it already has. We have to get those that believe that Morse code testing should go away to realize and admit that something must fill the vacuum created by its elimination. How? Many will say that no such vacuum is created, and there's nothing to replace. Others will say that the writtens are *harder* today than they were in the past. Etc. That something could be *nothing*, which results in a dramatic reduction in skill level. I've been repeatedly told here that there should not be *any* skills tests for a ham license. They also need to realize that there are people out there who want even less in the way of admission requirements. "Nobody wants licenses just given away" or the like is a naive statement. Sure. And there's also the concept of what constitutes a giveaway. Heck, the old 20 wpm/5 written test Extra has been passed by several children in their pre-teen years - how hard could it have been? Why? Because I could hand my wife the checkbook, turn her loose in AES or similar store, and after purchasing whatever the clerk reccomends, within a week or two she could be on the air. Some would say "That's a good thing!" There really is no impediment too a person whose extent of rf knowledgfe is that you recieve by twisting the knob, and to transmit, you push the push to talk button. There is no technical requirement any more, at least to simply "get on the air". We have to generate our own requirements. And how do you *prove* they are necessary, in a modern-day environment where even the self-proclaimed "professionals in radio" are using or will use manufactured rigs that are virtually foolproof? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |