• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

I Finally Confirmed It’s Not All in My Head…With Graphs!

Data is plural except when it is used (incorrectly) to mean information.
We're veering off the topic of empiracally proving we're hearing music to the vagaries of linguistics... but as Messers Mirriam and Webster note, data is no longer used strictly as a plural of datum. In common usage it is in fact awkward to pair with plural forms. For example: I collected data and then used it to form a hypothesis. For sticklers of the plural nature of data, you would instead have to say: I collected data and then used them to form a hypothesis. The latter is clearly not how people would commonly speak, even if certain style guides might require it. Much like style guides which insist on using an history are wrong. It's a history. ;)
 
Did I tell you all that, when she was in grad school, my wife's oral comprehensive exams (in Human Genetics at a rather prestigious private university that's not Ivy League, but likes to think it is ;)), included a series of singular/plural "questions" (e.g., Singular form of bacteria... that sort of thing). They apparently thought it was very important at that University's School of Medicine. :cool:
Good for them, because it is.

'Bacteria' is *plainly* a plural noun. If my doctor ever said 'bacteria is' I'd be worried.
 
We're veering off the topic of empiracally proving we're hearing music to the vagaries of linguistics... but as Messers Mirriam and Webster note, data is no longer used strictly as a plural of datum. In common usage it is in fact awkward to pair with plural forms. For example: I collected data and then used it to form a hypothesis. For sticklers of the plural nature of data, you would instead have to say: I collected data and then used them to form a hypothesis. The latter is clearly not how people would commonly speak, even if certain style guides might require it. Much like style guides which insist on using an history are wrong. It's a history. ;)
Lots of wrong doesn't make a right.

Actually I love how English isn't a language that has a committee that defines correct use. But I also like acting superior, maybe not as much as some people do, but for time to time I enjoy it. It's schemata and gymnasia. And if you have to abbreviate, it's mic not mike.
 
True, usage determines usage in the end, so by that token I get to observe:

in science, we tend to use 'data' as a plural noun.
The OP is making science jokes.
Q.E.D., 'data' should be used as a plural noun in them.

:cool:
 
on the other hand, we don't tend to get plural jokes in science. ;)
Sometimes replicate jokes, but only when the deviation of the humor is suspected to be standard.
 
First, I dusted off my UMIK-2 microphone, positioned it exactly where my ears would be located (after measuring the angle of my ears with a protractor to ensure maximum positional accuracy)

Should I mention that it is impossible to put a singular microphone in the exact same location as (plural) ears? This oversight makes the entire experiment invalid!

You really need to have surgically implanted calibration microphones in your ears, so then you are measuring exactly what you are hearing when you believe you are hearing it. This is the only way to know for sure if the voices are real...I mean, if the music is real!
 
I like it Mike, reminds me of drawing graphs and pictures with characters with the main frame printer.

We were happy interpreting results from such charts then. Mind you my first experience with a Hewlett-Packard X-Y plotter was a revelation!
 
Should I mention that it is impossible to put a singular microphone in the exact same location as (plural) ears? This oversight makes the entire experiment invalid!

You really need to have surgically implanted calibration microphones in your ears, so then you are measuring exactly what you are hearing when you believe you are hearing it. This is the only way to know for sure if the voices are real...I mean, if the music is real!
That is not true, because you don't have the processing unit of that data. You should wire the microphone trough the filter of you brain to get the real accurate data of what you hear. That procesing unit is important, because has to decode the data.
 
That is not true, because you don't have the processing unit of that data. You should wire the microphone trough the filter of you brain to get the real accurate data of what you hear. That procesing unit is important, because has to decode the data.
There is great truth in this!
 
Bravo, Chapeau and all that.

Great first post sequence. :)
 
That's what the machines want the OP to think. They feed us "music" to keep us calm and subservient here in this simulation.
 
One of my favorite philosophical questions: What is the difference between data and information?
Data is the raw data. Data becomes information when the data is organized and given context so it can be consumed and used by a person.

Yup, the old E.A. in me coming out again...

Welcome OP from a fellow canuck.
 
Back
Top Bottom