Author Topic: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists  (Read 184146 times)

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2181
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #405 on: July 29, 2015, 03:01:41 PM »
As I've said before, I never took calculus, and while I've taken high school physics, there are excellent reasons that none of us really learned anything in the class.  This is why I don't try to overturn science; I'm simply not qualified.
"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 bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3030
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #406 on: July 29, 2015, 03:17:06 PM »
I stopped one step higher than you in science, but with the same results.  I was more interested in the engineering aspects, not of the science.  It is good to be around those that carried on beyond my learning to fill in some of the gaps.

EDIT:
Added: science
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #407 on: July 29, 2015, 04:31:32 PM »
As I've said before, I never took calculus, and while I've taken high school physics, there are excellent reasons that none of us really learned anything in the class.  This is why I don't try to overturn science; I'm simply not qualified.

Exactly. There's lot of reasons I didn't try to become a painter, dancer, photographer, musician, singer, footballer, rugby player, cricketer... add to the list as you wish. I was much more naturally talented at maths, chemistry and physics, and also had a natural interest/talent. I quite enjoy reading history now. I find when I enjoy something I'll work at it. With my list, I worked out them but just got no better, so stopped enjoying them (this is all a statement of the obvious really).
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #408 on: July 29, 2015, 04:39:45 PM »
That's part of my debate philosophy.  When a proponent presents an argument that embodies a pretense to expertise, I ask questions that require knowledge, not facts.

I've noticed  ;D

In the dark parts of the internet where you'll find the most wretched hive of scum and villainy, those that call you Liar Windley bemoan this philosophy with their banshee cries that 'Windley just asks questions, he debates unfairly, he never addresses our claims.'

I'm not sure they understand the idea of examination by viva voce. If you've got a thesis, then it's going to be examined with a rigorous cross examination.

If they don't like the grill setting then they can get out of the kitchen. :)
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline dwight

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 683
    • Live Tv From the Moon
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #409 on: July 29, 2015, 05:01:04 PM »
Yeah, but can you find most of the best pilots in the darkest parts of the internet. That is what matters most, of course I understand one must be cautious.
"Honeysuckle TV on line!"

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3030
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #410 on: August 11, 2015, 11:29:04 PM »
That's part of my debate philosophy.  When a proponent presents an argument that embodies a pretense to expertise, I ask questions that require knowledge, not facts.

I've noticed  ;D

In the dark parts of the internet where you'll find the most wretched hive of scum and villainy, those that call you Liar Windley bemoan this philosophy with their banshee cries that 'Windley just asks questions, he debates unfairly, he never addresses our claims.'

I'm not sure they understand the idea of examination by viva voce. If you've got a thesis, then it's going to be examined with a rigorous cross examination.

If they don't like the grill setting then they can get out of the kitchen. :)
I just finished reading a couple of threads at the Education Forum.  It seems that Jack White and Duane Daman sure have poisoned the water concerning Jay.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3755
    • Clavius
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #411 on: August 12, 2015, 09:49:35 AM »
I just finished reading a couple of threads at the Education Forum.  It seems that Jack White and Duane Daman sure have poisoned the water concerning Jay.

Vitriol is all they had, and I think they know it.  White called me an "ignorant a--hole" and threatened to sue me for libel for challenging his Apollo claims.  Yet he rarely ventured outside of any of his walled gardens.  As I'm sure you're aware, I cover a few of White's bellwether claims on the Clavius site.  He really had no skill whatsoever in photographic analysis.  But the sheer proportion of bluster White and his congregants relied upon makes their shrill complaints from their self-imposed exiles pretty comical.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3030
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #412 on: August 12, 2015, 10:02:15 AM »
I just finished reading a couple of threads at the Education Forum.  It seems that Jack White and Duane Daman sure have poisoned the water concerning Jay.

Vitriol is all they had, and I think they know it.  White called me an "ignorant a--hole" and threatened to sue me for libel for challenging his Apollo claims.  Yet he rarely ventured outside of any of his walled gardens.  As I'm sure you're aware, I cover a few of White's bellwether claims on the Clavius site.  He really had no skill whatsoever in photographic analysis.  But the sheer proportion of bluster White and his congregants relied upon makes their shrill complaints from their self-imposed exiles pretty comical.
I NEVER have seen him defend any position he took.  Just saying "My work speaks for itself".  There was  James Fetzer, who I'm speculating, was being given post hints to continue the debate.  Classic use of words, that required my checking the dictionary to their meanings!  BLUSTER, IMO
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3755
    • Clavius
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #413 on: August 12, 2015, 11:35:55 AM »
I NEVER have seen him defend any position he took.  Just saying "My work speaks for itself".

That is a symptom of living too long in a walled garden.  White surrounded himself with fanboys who took his every word as gospel.  Under those circumstances it's not hard to acquire the mistaken belief that one merely has to say something and it thereby acquires the status of fact.

That's why I'm glad to be here.  When I make a mistake, a half dozen people on my side spring up and say, "No, Jay, I don't think that's right."  Other days it's someone else's turn to be mistaken.  This is how good work gets done.  When each person feels individual pressure to be right, making a mistake has emotional-investment consequences.  When there's a team mentality and a process (even informal) for reviewing propositions and correcting mistakes, the end result is more robust and requires less face-saving.  Engineering practice, in its purest form, is a group of skilled people executing a process of proposal, review, and analysis.  Individual mistakes and missteps occur along the way, but if a problem arises in the final product then the process is what went wrong.  It behooves the engineering team to discover how an error escaped the process designed to catch and correct it, not to point fingers at individuals.

Quote
There was  James Fetzer, who I'm speculating, was being given post hints to continue the debate.

Fetzer is another character altogether.  He made some hoax claims, and when I challenged him years ago to debate them he said he had no time to waste debating someone who didn't have a PhD.  (I guess a lifetime spent building aircraft and spacecraft professionally doesn't qualify me to stand in his glorious presence and talk about his claims relating to space flight.)  Fetzer's bluster is purely academic -- and literally so.  His entire career has been teaching esoteric philosophy of science in a backwater college.  He has no practical expertise in nearly anything that affects his claims, especially his hoax claims.  Fetzer showed up to JREF (now ISF) a year or so ago.  When I pressed him to assert whether or not he still believed in hoaxed Apollo missions, he evaded the question for weeks and then finally gave a perfunctory handwaving reference to a relatively obscure website author (one who basically just copied the Aulis authors) and told me that was all I needed to know about it.

He is clearly unwilling and unable to defend his Apollo hoax claims, but he still lists them on his own web site as something he apparently endorses.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1131
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #414 on: August 12, 2015, 03:01:11 PM »
IIRC, fetzer's PhD is in the philosophy of science. That hardly qualifies him to propound on hard science or engineering.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3030
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #415 on: August 12, 2015, 03:35:13 PM »
IIRC, fetzer's PhD is in the philosophy of science. That hardly qualifies him to propound on hard science or engineering.
He did not have many facts for sure just the information that seemed to be coming from Jack and Duane in emails behind the debate.  That is clearly my speculation, however.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #416 on: August 29, 2015, 07:34:32 PM »
That's why I'm glad to be here.  When I make a mistake, a half dozen people on my side spring up and say, "No, Jay, I don't think that's right."  Other days it's someone else's turn to be mistaken.  This is how good work gets done.  When each person feels individual pressure to be right, making a mistake has emotional-investment consequences.  When there's a team mentality and a process (even informal) for reviewing propositions and correcting mistakes, the end result is more robust and requires less face-saving.

...and there are those days for some of us where we think we might know the answer but are not quite sure, so hold back and defer to others. That is why I am glad to be here too. My contributions are limited to a few fields, but with time I have grown more confident that I can contribute to the forum because it is evident that we deal with our mistakes together. This strengthens the forum as we are prepared to call each other out and work to a better understanding. I know there are times when I have been wrong and others have stepped in to correct me. I take it with good spirit and retract my initial statements. That's how scientists, engineers, technicians and the well informed lay-persons work together. The other aspect of this forum that I enjoy is the number of enthusiasts that contribute, their knowledge is incredible.


Quote
Fetzer is another character altogether.  He made some hoax claims, and when I challenged him years ago to debate them he said he had no time to waste debating someone who didn't have a PhD.

Several of us here have PhD's and MSc's, and know not to debate you (or others) on aerospace engineering. Just like I would not try and pull the wool over ka9q's eyes when dealing with communication and programming. I'm guessing Fetzer knows your reputation and backed out. To refuse a debate because someone does not hold an equal qualification is intellectual cowardice.

I've met many PhDs in my life, and a large proportion of them are most unimpressive people. Yes, they can talk about 11-dimensional topologies to describe quantum gravity, but don't know how to use a screwdriver or spanner. The best scientists and engineers I have met are those that have got their hands dirty and built things.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1450
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #417 on: August 30, 2015, 03:56:54 AM »
I've met many PhDs in my life, and a large proportion of them are most unimpressive people.

Hi.

:D

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #418 on: August 30, 2015, 04:13:52 AM »
I've met many PhDs in my life, and a large proportion of them are most unimpressive people.

Hi.

:D

You're impressive, your work shows that.

For the record I have one myself (in physics). My point being that having a PhD is not the pathway to erudition. Don't get me wrong, in their fields all the PhDs I have met are very impressive, but some of their hands on skills or ability to think around their fields of expertise is disconcerting. I would probably count myself in the hands on skills area, but I know I can think beyond my areas of expertise.

I'm also making a point for the record here. As a PhD I know the subjects which I can talk about with expertise or as a well informed layman. Some CTs like to say, 'well he has a PhD.' My reply to that is 'in what field?' CTs seem to think when they find a PhD on their side it automatically means their argument is right because they have a PhD.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1450
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists
« Reply #419 on: August 30, 2015, 04:39:01 AM »
Aw shucks :D

There's a lot of mythology amongst HBs about academia. They have some very strange ideas about what it means to be in it and that everyone involved at University level is somehow 'in on' something or other and have sold their soul to the devil for fame and glory.

As you point out, most people in research are just ordinary people with bills to pay, grinding away at small chunks of a subject to try and shine a light on something. A lot of people with PhDs, like me, are doing stuff that bears no relation whatsoever to their original career path. Fun though surveying all those reservoirs was, it has nothing to do with my job in IT now.

My contribution to the body of knowledge was small, but it was done according to the standards set out for me. It was the application of an appropriate method, that's all.

I do wonder whether what I've done with satellite photos would (if re-written and more fully referenced and without the abuse directed at conspiracy theorists) qualify for another PhD - or at least a Masters :D