In <4o2qnj$kq5 at news.cc.utah.edu> Jonathan Foweraker
<fowerake at math.utah.edu> writes:
>>peter.murray at s054.aone.net.au (PRM) wrote:
>>>>Experience, example, and common sense suggest that carefully
engineered visual
>>tools (graphs etc.) can far more effectively convey insight into a
numerical
>>organism (i.e. business) that can numbers. Are pictures, and
therefore
>>graphs, an intrinsically more native and effective way to communicate
concepts
>>than numbers.
>>>>It is also true that carefully engineered visual tools can far more
effectively
>mislead, whereas the actual numbers will give a far more realistic
viewpoint.
>>For example:
>>Increases can be enlarged/reduced by using log/exponential scales.
>>By the appropriate choice of axes range effects can be
magnified/minimised:
>e.g. think of a graph showing a rise (say in concentration) followed
by a fall;
>A clearly defined 'pulse'? If the rise is from 102 to 107, and then
back to
>101 then no - although if the y-axis only ranges from 100 to 108 then
the graph
>might indicate (to the unobservant) that there is a significant rise.
>>On the other hand there are "Lies, damn lies and statistics".
>>However in general I agree that visual techniques are more appropriate
at
>getting the picture across than just tables of numbers. The best
example I
>can think of (no reference - sorry) is a picture showing Napolean's
march
>on Mosocow. The picture manages to convey the route, the number of men
-and
>so the number of casualties and also the date. It probably has more
information
>on it (I remember some colour coding) - and also shows where different
>divisions/battalions split off to achieve other objectives.
>>Cheers,
>>>Jonathan.
>
Dear Jonathan:
Regarding the perception of numbers,
music seems to play an important
role in conveying one abstract to
another. Truly, JC