In
formulating his Laws of Communication,
Wiio admitted his debt o the unknown originator of Murphy’s Law.
Acton's Law: “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts
absolutely.”
Quoted correctly – sometimes “tends to” is left out
Zymurgy's Law of Volunteer Labour: “People are always available for work in the past
tense."
Hadn’t heard of Zymurgy prior to visiting the website but I certainly like the
sentiment expressed!
Also checked o find whether “Finangle” was mentioned.
It has - numerous times.
I first came across “Finangle’s Laws” in 1965 when I was studying at the University of Melbourne. It was a two-paged photocopy from “Science Year Book 1958-59”, but no
author is identified. I’ve always assumed
that this Year Book was a publication of MU (at the time of publication MU was the
only university in Victoria), but I’ve not follow it up. I may – some day.
The article is quite long, and its 50’s language
is not currently always “correct” and, of course, uses Imperial measurement. It is clever. And the website
referred to above has extracted its “Murphy Laws” to place under "F" from it.
Finangle’s Laws
Why nothing in
research and development happens the way it should
Ever since the first scientific experiment, men
have been plagued by the increasing antagonism of Nature. Only his patience, adaptability and
forbearance have permitted the scientist to learn a few minor facts about the
operation of the universe.
We still do not really know why this should be so. It’s only natural that Nature should be
logical and neat – but it isn’t, and the best teacher of all, Experience, turns
out to be just the gradual acceptance of Nature’s pigheadedness.
Over the years a series of laws have evolved. The laws actually represent a distillation of
experience of thousands of experimenters, but (until Dr Finangle came along)
they were never recorded for the study and edification of the younger members
of our profession because they had no derivation – no proof. They were true because they have always been
true. Look into to your own experience
and see if this is not so.
We are grateful to John A. Scott* for bringing
this work to our attention, to the many who collected and contributed samples
so that others might share their experience.
On experiments:
The first four laws are the only one’s dignified
by number. Note the beauty and simplicity
of the First Law. Also note that the
remaining three laws refer to man’s reactions to Nature – not to Nature itself.
First Law:
If anything can go wrong with an experiment, it will.
Second Law:
No matter what result is anticipated, there is always someone willing to fake
it.
Third Law:
No matter what the result, there is always someone eager to misinterpret it.
Fourth Law:
No matter what occurs, there is always someone who believes it happened
according to his pet theory.
The Law of the Too Solid Goof:
In any collection of data, the figure that is most obviously correct – beyond
all need of checking – is the mistake.
Corollary I
No one whom you ask for help will see it, either.
Corollary II
Everyone who stops by with unsought advice will see it immediately.
A further series of rules – or really advice to
experimenters – has been formulated. They
are a natural consequence of the first four laws reduced to day-to-day the
practice.
- Experiments must be reproducible – they should
all fail in the same way.
- First draw your curves – then plot the readings.
- Experience is directly proportional to the
equipment ruined.
- A record of the data is useful – it indicates you’ve
been working.
- To study a subject best, understand it
thoroughly before you start.
- In case of doubt, make it sound convincing.
- Do not believe in miracles – rely on them.
- Always leave room to add an explanation when it
doesn’t work. (This open-door policy is
also known as the "Rule of the Way Out".)
Human Foibles:
The remaining rules outlined the human problems
that follow from the above. To some
extent they represent man’s reaction to Nature and, even more aptly, man’s
reaction to man.
Laws of Revision – often lumped into the “Now They Tell Us!” Law.
First Law:
Information necessitating a change of design will be conveyed to the designer
after - and only after - the plans are complete.
Corollary I
In
simple cases, where one obvious right way is supposed to one obvious wrong way,
it is often wiser to choose the wrong way right off.
Second Law:
The more innocuous the revision appears to be at first, the further its influence
will extend and more plans will have to be redrawn.
Third Law:
If, when the completion of the design is imminent, field dimensions are finally
supplied as they actually are – instead of as they were meant to be – it is
always simpler to start all over.
Fourth Law:
Even if it is impossible to assemble a part incorrectly, still a way will be
found to do it wrong.
Corollary I
It
is usually impractical to worry beforehand about interferences – if you have
none, someone will make one for you.
The Law of the Lost Inch:
In
designing any type of construction, no overall dimensions can be total
correctly after 4.00 pm Friday.
Corollary I
Under
the same conditions, if any minor dimensions are given to 1/16 of an inch
they cannot be totaled at all.
Corollary II
The
correct total will be self evident at 9.01 Monday morning.
Deliveries that normally take one day we’ll take
five when you are waiting.
When adjusting (or drawing or computing, etc)
remember that the eye of the chief inspector (engineer, draughtsman, etc) is
more accurate than the finest instruments.
After adding two weeks to a scheduled for
unexpected delays, add two more weeks for the unexpected unexpected delays.
In any problems, if you find yourself doing an
unending amount of work, the answer may be obtained by inspection.
Finangle’s Creed: Science is Truth – don’t be misled by facts.
Finangle’s Motto: Smile – tomorrow it will be worse.
The Finangle Factor:
A mathematical notation of Finangle’s work has also
been developed. Here, however, there
seems to be some confusion, because two other names enter the picture: Fudge and Diddle factors are also used to considerable advantage by
scientists and engineers.
Years ago –when the universe was relatively easy to
understand –the Finangle factor
consisted of a simple additive constant (or sometimes known as a variable constant) in the form:
x’ = Kf + x
Where any measured variables, x’, could be made to agree with theory, x, by the simple addition of the Finangle
factor, Kf .
Later difficulties could not be solved so easily and so a Fudge factor, Kb, was added.
x’ = Kf + Kbx
Powerful as this adjustment was, World War II studies
in the servo theory indicated a need for a still stronger influence. The Diddle
factor, Kd, was born and made to multiply the quadratic term.
x’ = Kf + Kbx + Kdx2
It is felt that, at least the present, reality can be
made to conform to mathematical theory with reasonable agreement on the basis
of these three factors.
However, John W. Campbell* feels that there is a
different basic structure behind the Finangle, Fudge and Diddle factors. The Finangle’s factor, he claims, is
characterised by changing the universe to fit an equation. The Fudge
factor, on the other end, changes the equation to fit the universe. And finally the, Diddle factor, changes things so that the equation and the universe
appear to fit, without making any real change in either.
For example, the planet Uranus was introduced to the
universe when Newtonian laws couldn’t be made to match the known planetary
motions. This is a beautiful example of
the application of the Finangle factor.
Einstein’s the work leading to relativity was strongly
influenced by the observed facts about the orbit of Mercury. Obviously a Fudge factor was introduced.
The photographers use of a “soft focus” lens when
taking portraits of women over 35 is an example of the Diddle factor. By blurring
the results, photographs are made to appear to match the facts in a far more
satisfactory manner.
To our knowledge, this is the first clear enunciation
of the scientific method. All our vast
sum of human knowledge has been derived with these as the basic tools. Having them in writing for the first time,
perhaps our children can build even better futures than the best we envision
today.
*
Don’t know whether these people are “real” - John
A. Scott and John W. Campbell. Although a quick search of Wikipedia shows the latter
name belonging to a famous science fiction writer and hence a possible
authentic reference.
