For those of us who know nothing about photography.

A classic article from Mike Johnston's TOP Blog. .
I quess there is hope for some of us who do not "get" certain photographic concepts and truths.

I do know that I know nothing about exposure anymore thanks to forums, so I am just gonna go aperture priority with auto iso enabled and carry on like I have for decades.

I have noticed in recent years that online discussions about photography tend to suffer from the same problems as online discussions in many other subjects - politics, medicine, etc. There seems to be an increase in the number of people who argue to win rather than argue to learn.

This can create huge confusion amongst those who are reading the discussion in the hope of learning something.

There's more to it as an excess of technical theories and details can be distracting and confusing by itself. People might even get the wrong idea as 'inside knowledge' isnt required at all to capture photographs, its just theory after all. Getting familiar with the tool at hand, doing with it what it was meant for is the more important thing to factor in using a device. If I had to use a metaphor to explain myself I'd say 'to succesfully drive a car one does not need to know the inner workings of the car as only the howto matters'.

It is perfectly true that you don't need to know any of the science of photography to take good pictures. Nevertheless, many photographers are interested in how things work.

However, scientific and technical discussions in these forums are frequently interrupted by people who says something to the effect: "it's all bunk, I take perfectly good pictures without worrying about any of this."

People who are not interested in a discussion on technical matters should keep out of the discussion. That is just good manners.

It is also logically incorrect to suggest that a theory is bunk because it is possible to take good pictures without understanding the theory.

Fair point

I'm not saying anything theory should be done away with but proportionally added to conversations when called for, or when specifically asked for, might be more effective (in the light of educational value) than going all out scientific about it. It is nice for photons to exist and for sensor matrices to exist but its all very specific really, captivating only a very small percentage of (aspiring) photographers.

I'm not sure if my thinking is correct, nonetheless, here it is:

I was a tech guy. Quite an interested curious guy, really happy to learn, all my life long.

So, I happily started reading all the fabulous threads this forum was offering...
... about triangles, equivalence, and raws multiplicating factors.

I just stopped and will not enter any of them.
There is nothing to learn from an endless discussion.
For sure not .. Who is more precise, who is more right, what aspects somebody is missing.

You don't need a needle,
to build a railroad ...
unless, while you are at it

(your pants crack, just in the middle 😂 )

It seems the editorial could have been accomplished in far fewer words.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but isn't "arguing to learn" an oxymoron?

That depends on your definitions of success and inner workings. If you aspire to be a race car driver then understanding that it's easier and faster to accelerate out of a turn than into one would be a vital thing to understand.

Regarding your link. There is some internet law that states that in any internet debate, after a certain number of posts, the name of a certain Adolf Hitler will come into the conversation. I guess we have moved on and Trump has replaced Hitler, as far as this law is concerned.

Ah, context, it's a tricky thing.

Certainly not. People frequently argue about things with the aim of learning something new in the process.

I suppose it is really a matter of having an open mind and being prepared to admit to being wrong rather than wanting to win at all costs. It also presupposes an understanding of the scientific method and an ability to put it into practice.

agree, the most sucessful business people in the world practice "open thinking" i doubt many here would even know the concept.

that has nothing to do with the inner workings of the engine. but driver skill.

Having at least a reasonable understanding of what is happening under the camera's "hood" definitely helped me improve the quality of my raw files especially in low light.

In good light I have often posted that with a big enough supply of bananas you can train a monkey to take a nice looking photo with today's modern cameras. So if you photograph mainly in good light then yes, the extra incremental benefit in raw data quality by using what is happening under the camera's "hood" might not be noticeable in many photos.

Its not being pedantic, its perfectionism , i had and augument with my daughter over it yesterday 😁its fine in a scientific paper but gets annoying in every day like actions. 🤐

I can believe that.
😉

I wouldn't say I know nothing -just enough to be dangerous 😂😂