Melbourne - Centenary Test 1977

At the time of the Centenary Test we were living in the area (East Melbourne) and walked down to the MCG for the after Tea session of the fourth day's play.
The Test results were usual - Australia won each by 45 runs!
Took some photos - 35 mm slides originally which I've converted to digital images. I've included four images - three from the Test and one of the First Day Cover combined with a sterling sliver proof medal.
The photo of the old MCG scoreboard shows England to be in their second innings - with Amiss and Randall at bat and O'Keeffe bowling -  but check it out for yourself.

First Day Cover

 

MCG - Old Scoreboard: Randall at bat with O'Keeffe bowling

Marsh at stumps - Randall about to play a delivery from O'Keeffe

A fast bowler at end of delivery

Melbourne - Present Day

On Tuesday, 18 December, I decided to be a tourist in my own City. Took the train into Flinders St station, using Myki card with no problems.
Left the station through the Degraves St exit -  if memory serves correctly, the last time I used that exit was in the mid-1960's.
Sauntered long Elizabeth St to Lonsdale St, with visits into Collins and Bourke Sts, then along Lt Lonsdale St into the LaTrobe Library area and down Swanston St back to the station.  Taking photographs along the way - aren't digital cameras great, no worries about keeping track of shots taken in case I ran out film. Was a "good Melbourne citizen" and helped a young Swiss couple find Collins St.
I only took 200 photos - here are three:

Howey Court

An Arcade off Lt Lonsdale St

Swanston St just past the City Square

Murphy's Law - Finangle's Elaboration

In formulating his Laws of Communication, Wiio admitted his debt o the unknown originator of Murphy’s Law.

Someone has actually complied an alphabetic listing of “Murphy-type” laws - statements - sayings (The Complete Edition of Murphy’s Laws).  I’ve selected two examples:

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’ = K_f  + x

Where any measured variables, x’, could be made to agree with theory, x, by the simple addition of the Finangle factor, K_f .

Later difficulties could not be solved so easily and so a Fudge factor, K_b, was added.

x’ = K_f  + K_bx

Powerful as this adjustment was, World War II studies in the servo theory indicated a need for a still stronger influence.  The Diddle factor, K_d, was born and made to multiply the quadratic term.

x’ = K_f  + K_bx + K_dx²

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.

Marshall McLuhan - On Phoniness

I have no other “hard copy” record of the World Paper other than the February 1979 one.  It does have a presence on the web, (www.worldpaper.com/index.html).  But it appears that 2004 was the last year of its publication.

The February 1979 issue has, on the same page 7 that Wiio’s “Laws of Communication” appears on, an interview with Marshall McLuhan, who was at that time was associated with the University of Toronto.

I’d like to quote in full a section of the interview titled:

On Phoniness and Irresponsibility

“Real” is an idea borrowed from the visual world.  The word ‘phony’ –which means ‘unreal’ in English slang – originally meant “as unreal as a telephone conversation”.  In the 1920 dictionary, that’s what ‘phony’ meant.

But the “unrealness” is the result of the electric speed.  At the speed of light, we do not have any physical bodies.  When we’re on the telephone or on the air we literally do not have a physical body.  We become completely software, and we don’t pay any attention to what this does to us physically.

When you don’t have a body, you have no way of relating to the physical world.  You lose your identity.  So electronic man is minus an identity.  He is also minus any responsibility to anybody.

We read about 20, 000 dead in an earthquake in Iran - and it doesn’t mean anything.  People may be more aware in a factual sense, but the facts have no impact upon them.  It’s well known that people today in electronic cultures will stand around and watch people get killed and beaten up and not turn a hand.  They think, “Oh, it’s just another news event”.

I’ll say no more because any discussion would be too involved and way beyond my reasons for starting this blog.  Some links:
MMXI – Celebrating 100 years of McLuhan – Marshall McLuhan
McLuhan Galaxy
Marshall McLuhan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the other hand, picking on the derivation of ‘phony’ (or phoney) is not.

Let’s start with my “hard copy” dictionaries:

1.      The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 4^th Ed 1951, Reprinted 1956, p895:
Considers it Slang and origin unknown

2.      Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 2^nd Ed, Revised, 2003, p850:
Considers it Informal and origin unknown

3.      New Flower’s Modern English Usage, 3^rd Ed, Revised, 1998, p594:
“A now very familiar word, esp, since the phoney war ((relative inaction before full-scale hostilities) of 1940, but not traced in print before 1900, and of uncertain origin.”

4.      Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language – Unabridged, 1950(?):
Not listed!?

On-line dictionaries:

1.      Merriam-Webster (Phony - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary) gives the following as the origin:
“perhaps alteration of fawney gilded brass ring used in the fawney rig, a confidence game, from Irish fáinne ring, from Old Irish ánne — more at ANUS
First Known Use: 1900”:
PS: Following the ANUS link does actually lead to the “alimentary canal”

2.      Dictionary.com (Phony | Define Phony at Dictionary.com) gives as a similar origin:
“1895–1900; perhaps alteration and respelling of fawney  (slang) finger ring (< Irish fsptáinne ), if taken to mean “false” in the phrase fawney rig a confidence game in which a brass ring is sold as a gold one

3.      Oxford Dictionaries (Definition of phoney - British & World English) maintains the “hard copy” origin, namely:
“late 19th century: of unknown origin”

Before returning to McLuhan’s derivation, I’d like to consider Webster’s Dictionary non-listing of “phony/phoney”.  This seems peculiar as in Wikipedia’s introduction on its entry “The Phoney War” (Phoney War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) it states:

The term "Phoney War" was possibly coined by U.S. Senator William Borah who stated, in September 1939: "There is something phoney about this war."

Thus the word was in use in the USA well before 1950.  So who knows why the “unabridged” dictionary “abridged” phoney?  I also could not find the year of publication of the dictionary.  The year I quote as 1950 is an “estimate”.   

The dictionary has a fascinating (at least for me) Appendix.

Page 1 of this Appendix lists “The Largest Cities in the United States” and gives the populations in 1930, 1940 and 1950 (estimated for this year).  So the estimated population for 1950 for New York City is given as 7,835,099 (with estimates like this who needs to count!).  I acquired the dictionary, second-hand, in 1957, but on fly-leaf is written that it was bought in Melbourne in October 1953.

Page 117 of this Appendix lists “The Presidents of the United States” (accompanied by “pen & ink” sketches) with President Truman the last listed.  Thus it was published after 1948 but before 1952.

Hence, my “estimate” of 1950 which is 1 in 4 and at least somewhat more optimistic than estimating the population of NY City to 1 in 10^7.

Back to McLuhan’s derivation:
The word ‘phony’ –which means ‘unreal’ in English slang – originally meant “as unreal as a telephone conversation”.  In the 1920 dictionary, that’s what ‘phony’ meant.

It would be good to find that “1920 dictionary”, but I like the derivation. Currently words are being coined from ITC – like “to google”.  Here's a suggested one for an incessant Facebook user – “facerbee”.  For example, someone who goes to a restaurant with friends and takes a photo of every course and posts them, then and there, unto Facebook.

By the way, I could not find any reference to the interview published in The World Paper in February 1979 in any of the bibliographies on Marshall McLuhan as they appear in the blog McLuhan Galaxy.  It was, however, a very cursory scan.