From 526d4c1b4210aaf908cfbe671e5db346251b6b72 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zane Meyers Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 07:13:01 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] vault backup: 2025-12-17 07:13:01 --- 2025-12-17.md | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 85 insertions(+) create mode 100644 2025-12-17.md diff --git a/2025-12-17.md b/2025-12-17.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..875c10e --- /dev/null +++ b/2025-12-17.md @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ +--- +id: +aliases: [] +title: 2025-12-17 +tags: + - authorship/original + - destiny/permanent + - status/draft + - type/daily +--- +# 2025-12-17 + +## 2025-12-17 05:39 + +One aspect of estimating that I find most interesting, +but that is criminally understudied, +is the effect of building dimensions +(footprint shape, floor area, stories, height) +on total cost. + +Unfortunately, lack of interest in the subject extends beyond estimating. +Discourse on spatial data seems to fall into one of two bins: +* civil engineering +* n-dimensional mathematics[^1] +neither are readily applicable to building construction. + +[^1]: worse still, the "space" studied in such disciplines is + [vector space](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space) + where "distance" is a measure of similarity + and physical geometry is rarely considered. + +Of the two, pure math would be be preferred---being generally more rigorous--- +but the first bin far outweighs the second. +See the difference in content from [geostatistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostatistics) +to the conceivably far more broad [spatial statistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_statistics). + +> [!quote] [Geographic data and information](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_data_and_information) +> **Spatial data** or **spatial information** is broader class of data +> whose geometry is relevant +> but it is not necessarily [georeferenced](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georeferenced "Georeferenced"), +> such as in computer-aided design (CAD), +> see [geometric modeling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_modeling "Geometric modeling"). + +### Common Fallacies + +* [Reification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)) + + > [!quote] + > **Reification** ... is a fallacy of ambiguity, + > ...it is the error of treating something that is not concrete... + > as a concrete thing. + + See ["the map is not the territory"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map-territory_relation "Map-territory relation"). + + > [!aside] + > This one is very common among my peers in estimating. + > The problem with fallacies, of course, + > is that you can't simply say "Reification fallacy, booyah". + > If some one is overgeneralizing, + > they likely just have a different understanding of the term. + > Certainty of definition only occurs with some quorum, + > and I'd argue most of [[construction-estimating|ours]] don't meet it, + > and that the choice of any term over another ought to be based on utility. + > + > > Note also that a term's definition can be certain ~~on some axis~~, + > > but ambiguous ~~on another~~. + > > See ["I know it when I see it"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it) + > > which, as far as I'm concerned, is a perfectly legitimate definition. + +* [Equivocation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation "Equivocation") + + The misleading use of a word with more than one meaning + +* [Composition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition "Fallacy of composition") + + Assuming a whole has a property because its parts have that property + +* [Division](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division "Fallacy of division") + + Assuming parts have a property because the whole has that property + +> [!quote] [Category mistake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake) +> An example is a person learning that the game of cricket involves team spirit, +> and after being given a demonstration of each player's role, +> asking which player performs the "team spirit".