[r-t] Blocks to be renamed as methods

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Thu Apr 20 00:20:34 UTC 2017

​On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> this distinction is currently fundamental to our classification system.

I certainly agree that it's best not to rush this, lest something silly be
accidentally perpetrated.

That said, classification is not fundamental to ringing. It's just a tool
folks have chosen to use when applicable, and the tool should be our
servant, not the other way around. In this case, I think single lead
methods will be rare enough in practice that they don't need the
complicated taxonomic machinery currently employed* for the usual single
hunt fare. One presumes this will be another area where insisting on too
rigid a notion of method extension and shared naming schemes is going to
cause unnecessary pain :-)

> do still wonder if there is some validity in the philosophical
> argument that methods must have structure,

Treat any statement in this vicinity that includes the word "must" with
skepticism. In this case it appears to be simply a matter of taste.

* Of course, it will not surprise you that I also think that taxonomy is
overly complicated for the needs of the usual stuff, too.

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"The poet...may be used as a barometer, but let us not forget that
he is also part of the weather."                   -- Lionel Trilling
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20170419/d43ca625/attachment.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list