Author Topic: A Little Help, Please?  (Read 25083 times)

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #30 on: April 11, 2013, 08:49:04 AM »
But does a method to the madness negate the madness?
What I meant was that they could easily be trolling. They are only pretending to be stupid, and doing it in a clever way. For example, they simply ignore any line of questioning designed to trap them in a clear contradiction.


Offline Noldi400

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 627
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #31 on: April 11, 2013, 10:28:00 AM »
Some of them, too, will seemingly become wedded to one formula that they think they understand and (because they actually don't understand it or its correct application) that they think proves or disproves something and cling to it no matter how many times their mistake is explained.

Heiwa, with his kinetic energy obsession, comes to mind. Or CNNetc, with his current obsession with f=ma and his insistence that it somehow calls into question the capabilities of the Saturn V.

My understanding of physics is rudimentary at best, especially in the company I'm keeping on this board, but I generally have the intelligence to know what I do and don't understand.
"The sane understand that human beings are incapable of sustaining conspiracies on a grand scale, because some of our most defining qualities as a species are... a tendency to panic, and an inability to keep our mouths shut." - Dean Koontz

Offline twik

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #32 on: April 11, 2013, 11:20:09 AM »
I already knew that he was terrible with perspective and changing angle in photos; when he started in on the theory that the lunar astronauts sincerely believe that they went to the moon because they were drugged and hypnotized and had false memories implanted, that was when I began to suspect that his reality was somewhat distorted - "The Manchurian Astronauts"?.

I think there's always a tipping point with conspiracists. Many people like throwing around conspiracy theories, because, as one writer put it, "they have an engaging air of plausibility on their surface, and would make things interesting if true." However, when the theorist gets to the point of believing that the entire world (other than him or her) is collaborating on a sham of reality, s/he's gone beyond being able to judge something as "plausible".

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #33 on: April 11, 2013, 11:21:57 AM »
That's the nub.

I am a pretty good physicist, but don't undstand a lot of the engineering nitty gritty.

It may well be that I am committing a logical fallacy (accepting an argument from authority?) but when someone who I know has a lot of knowledge and experience in engineering tells me something is so, whether I understand it or not, I believe them.  I assume any failure to understand is my problem, not that the rest of the world is wrong.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline Noldi400

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 627
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #34 on: April 11, 2013, 11:49:11 AM »
That's the nub.

I am a pretty good physicist, but don't undstand a lot of the engineering nitty gritty.

It may well be that I am committing a logical fallacy (accepting an argument from authority?) but when someone who I know has a lot of knowledge and experience in engineering tells me something is so, whether I understand it or not, I believe them.  I assume any failure to understand is my problem, not that the rest of the world is wrong.
Well, as I said in an earlier post, accepting an argument from authority isn't necessarily a fallacy; the factors are (1) is the authority a legitimate expert in the field, and (2) is there a consensus among legitimate experts that agrees with his/her statement?

So, for example, if JayUtah makes a statement about astrodynamics that agrees with the current consensus among other astronautical engineers, you're on safe ground in treating the statement as presumptively true.

Which reflects my view about a large part of the Apollo program.  I have a working understanding of most of it, even if I can't do the math when it comes to the fine points. Unlike the HB mindset, I (like you) presume that anything I don't understand is a lack on my part, not a failure of the real world to bend to my expectations.

Hell, even experts get surprised. Both Armstrong and Conrad commented on the lack of a blast crater under the LM, so it sounds as if they were expecting to see one. Sometimes the real world just surprises us.
"The sane understand that human beings are incapable of sustaining conspiracies on a grand scale, because some of our most defining qualities as a species are... a tendency to panic, and an inability to keep our mouths shut." - Dean Koontz

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #35 on: April 11, 2013, 12:02:49 PM »
Hell, even experts get surprised. Both Armstrong and Conrad commented on the lack of a blast crater under the LM, so it sounds as if they were expecting to see one. Sometimes the real world just surprises us.

Very true.  "Common sense" is sometimes (or even often) distorted - I can think of a few experiments that have been run where the results had me scratching my head and saying, "Wait... what?!"
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline Noldi400

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 627
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #36 on: April 11, 2013, 02:37:56 PM »
Hell, even experts get surprised. Both Armstrong and Conrad commented on the lack of a blast crater under the LM, so it sounds as if they were expecting to see one. Sometimes the real world just surprises us.

Very true.  "Common sense" is sometimes (or even often) distorted - I can think of a few experiments that have been run where the results had me scratching my head and saying, "Wait... what?!"

Like the second quote in your sig - it's the surprises that open new doors.
"The sane understand that human beings are incapable of sustaining conspiracies on a grand scale, because some of our most defining qualities as a species are... a tendency to panic, and an inability to keep our mouths shut." - Dean Koontz

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #37 on: April 11, 2013, 05:46:48 PM »
It may well be that I am committing a logical fallacy (accepting an argument from authority?) but when someone who I know has a lot of knowledge and experience in engineering tells me something is so, whether I understand it or not, I believe them.  I assume any failure to understand is my problem, not that the rest of the world is wrong.

Provided you're limiting it to "this person knows engineering in X capacity, and this thing is in X capacity," I think you and I are good when we do that.  Goodness knows I'd be in trouble if I were required to do all the math myself; I don't even know where to start, in a lot of places.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #38 on: April 11, 2013, 06:44:07 PM »
"Common sense" is sometimes (or even often) distorted - I can think of a few experiments that have been run where the results had me scratching my head and saying, "Wait... what?!"

My favourite one of those that got me during my A-level physics class was the magnet down a copper tube. I remember the teacher dropping a plain metal slug down a copper tube into a box of sand. It fell with the acceleration and final velocity you'd expect of an object in freefall. She then dropped another one down the tube. Same size, same mass, same shape. The only difference was it was magnetic. Of course none of us expected anythign different to happen since copper is not magnetic. It fell more slowly. A LOT more slowly. We were all quite stunned. Then she explained about the movement of the magnet causing eddy currents in the electrons in the copper, setting up an opposing magentic field in the tube that slowed its fall. Not something any one of us would ever have thought of given our 'common sense' knowledge of metals and magnets, but there it was.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2013, 05:30:15 AM »
I am a pretty good physicist, but don't undstand a lot of the engineering nitty gritty.

It may well be that I am committing a logical fallacy (accepting an argument from authority?)
If you're a physicist, then you're a scientist. That means you understand the scientific method common to all fields of science (and with significant application in engineering and medicine). So even if you don't personally know the field in question, you can at least check that the experts are following the scientific method in theirs.

I've had to think about this recently while debating some global-warming deniers. I have enough personal expertise in physics, engineering and other fields relevant to space flight to not have to take anybody else's word that Apollo was real, but I most definitely don't in climate research. Besides, we don't have any major life decisions to base on Apollo's reality. For climate change, we do.

Oh, I understand the basic physics of radiative heat transfer and the general mechanism of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions, but that's far from being able to independently evaluate the claims that the earth's average temperature will rise X degrees in 10, 50 or 100 years and what that will mean. I really have to trust the judgment of those who do work in that field.

But I can still walk around and "kick the tires". I can see that many researchers are active in the field. I can look at their credentials and see that they have what seem like the relevant skills and experience. I can see that their raw data and computer models are open to inspection and verification. I can see that they publish formal papers in open journals, present them at conferences and answer questions. I can see that they review each others' work before it is formally presented. I can see that dissenting views are encouraged and accepted or rejected after a proper evaluation.

To a limited extent I can also look at their track record: have their short-term predictions been accurate?

So when this process produced a strong consensus, I thought it reasonable to accept the experts' conclusions, to base decisions on them and advocate that others do the same. But that acceptance is always tentative.


Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2013, 05:46:04 AM »
Not something any one of us would ever have thought of given our 'common sense' knowledge of metals and magnets, but there it was.
When I first heard of this experiment it seemed 'common sense' to me that the magnet would fall slowly. But I was already well on my way to becoming an electrical engineer.

I don't remember seeing it before I got interested in electricity and electronics, but if I had I probably would have had the same reaction as you. Maybe I did and I've simply forgotten.

My point is that 'common sense' is neither common nor innate nor fixed, even if it seems like 'common sense' that it should be. It's really a product of all your education and experience, and that's why it's so different from person to person.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #41 on: April 12, 2013, 06:23:21 AM »
When many people can't independently verify an expert's conclusions, they often look not only at his education, experience and method but also his motives. Lawyers, regulators and politicians seem to do this almost to the exclusion of everything else, as do many ordinary people.

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I find it highly disturbing because the truth or falsity of a fact does not depend on who says it (unless it applies to that person, of course) or their motives. A factual claim should be judged on its own merits.

On the other hand, I can't deny that there are many examples of the scientific process being corrupted by ulterior motives like money and power. In fact I'm seriously worried about the survival of the traditional scientific method.

So far, it's been marvelously effective at ferreting out honest mistakes, self-delusion and the occasional case of malice or greed. But because science has been so enormously successful, it now plays a major role in creating wealth and informing public policy. Certain individuals or groups -- often well endowed -- can have a very large stake in the outcome of a certain scientific investigation, and that creates a strong incentive to influence it.

So for many people, especially non-scientists, maybe examining motive really is the most cost- and time-effective method available when they don't know how to judge a claim on its own merits.

I find even myself making this argument when I point out the irony of the energy companies accusing climate scientists of being financially motivated. But it still makes me uncomfortable and I'm not sure what we can do about it.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2013, 06:26:29 AM by ka9q »

Offline Not Myself

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
  • Unwanted Irritant
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #42 on: April 12, 2013, 10:42:18 AM »
So for many people, especially non-scientists, maybe examining motive really is the most cost- and time-effective method available when they don't know how to judge a claim on its own merits.

I think it is often likely to be the most cost- and time-effective method for scientists as well.  No one can be an expert in everything.

In this regard, it seems to me that many scientists and non-scientists alike are very inclined to judge the most reliable sources to be those which tell them what they want to hear.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2013, 10:45:28 AM by Not Myself »
The internet - where bigfoot is real and the moon landings aren't.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #43 on: April 12, 2013, 09:15:20 PM »
In this regard, it seems to me that many scientists and non-scientists alike are very inclined to judge the most reliable sources to be those which tell them what they want to hear.
Then we're all doomed.

Offline Not Myself

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
  • Unwanted Irritant
Re: A Little Help, Please?
« Reply #44 on: April 12, 2013, 11:21:44 PM »
In this regard, it seems to me that many scientists and non-scientists alike are very inclined to judge the most reliable sources to be those which tell them what they want to hear.
Then we're all doomed.

Oh, I don't know.  I suspect not much has changed in this regard for thousands of years.
The internet - where bigfoot is real and the moon landings aren't.