|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 12, 2010 8:30:48 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 12, 2010 9:16:16 GMT -4
I'll get the beers and crisps in.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 12, 2010 9:25:32 GMT -4
Ready salted please.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Aug 12, 2010 10:41:44 GMT -4
Jack has the opportunity to debate his Apollo claims under a controlled environment in his favour. "in his favour" excludes any opponent for Jack...
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 12, 2010 11:55:46 GMT -4
I for one will *NOT* be holding my breath waiting on Jack.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Aug 12, 2010 12:22:00 GMT -4
I for one will *NOT* be holding my breath waiting on Jack. Can a forum be considered a suicide cult if its members died holding their breath waiting for Jack White to accept the challenge?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 12, 2010 12:54:48 GMT -4
I've always thought Fetzer was awfully pretentious. He refused to debate me on the grounds that I did not have a doctorate. I don't see that his doctorate is particularly useful for anything other than lecturing to beginning philosophy students. Academia is well and good, but if one spends his entire life cloistered in ivy-covered halls then one will miss out on the experience those of us who have both academic and professional experience bring to the table.
And he refuses to debate you on the grounds that you supposedly lack his depth of Apollo knowledge. As near as I can tell, Fetzer's Apollo "knowledge" is simply the hogwash he picks up from conspiracy web sites and videos. Like most other conspiracy fans, he thinks this elevates him to an expert's knowledge. So I'll ask him how many spacecraft designs he has actually participated in, or how many space missions he has actually planned.
I've sadly seen Fetzer's type before: he thinks that one credential makes him an expert in all fields. He is exactly the type of academic that gives academics a bad name. These kinds of people bluster their way into industry with lots of book-learning, utterly unaware of any sort of real-world expertise or specialized education and experience. Being educated in the "philosophy of science" does not qualify him to practice all sciences. In fact, it doesn't really qualify him to practice any. It certainly does not qualify him to practice engineering, or comment knowledgeably on engineering practice.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 12, 2010 14:46:58 GMT -4
That is a nice put up or shut up call. I t will be interesting how it plays out. I'll stay in the land of the living in not holding my breath too.
Is there a meta-discussion thread for the debate?
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Aug 12, 2010 15:57:17 GMT -4
Being educated in the "philosophy of science" does not qualify him to practice all sciences. Even if someone was only educated in the "philosophy of science" shouldn't he realize that simply repeating the same claim over and over is just plain stupid?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 12, 2010 16:00:13 GMT -4
Shoot, I'm not educated in the "philosophy of science," and I know that.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 12, 2010 16:53:41 GMT -4
I don't see that his doctorate is particularly useful for anything other than lecturing to beginning philosophy students. Coming out of school I first worked for Bell Labs. They treated new PhDs exactly like someone with a masters' degree (the minimum to be a member of their technical staff) plus four years of experience. I.e., they counted the four years it typically takes to get a PhD after a MS as equivalent to four years of industrial experience. Beyond that I didn't see that having a PhD conferred much of an advantage in pay, promotions, etc, except in the fundamental research areas. And they're right. Having interviewed many engineering candidates over the 32 years I've been an engineer in industry, my take is that a PhD in science and engineering is primarily relevant to teaching and basic research. For much of what most industrial engineers do, a master's degree and on-the-job experience is much more relevant. Even a ham radio license is often more significant in my field (digital radio communications).
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 12, 2010 16:58:32 GMT -4
The only drawback I see to the challenge as stated is that it's a one-on-one debate.
I don't see the point of a one-on-one debate if the purpose is to get at the truth rather than an entertaining battle of personalities. Burton should be able to consult with anyone he wants and so should Jack, though it would be up to each of them to decide what to say.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 12, 2010 18:01:29 GMT -4
No reply yet. I wager one trip around the sun that White does not reply. The trip is payable in ~1/365th increments daily over the next year.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 12, 2010 23:41:46 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Aug 13, 2010 1:16:19 GMT -4
Oh wow. Here are two of his conditions: So in other words, everything will go the exact same way as they've gone for years, except White now wants someone else to reply to Burton's evaluations.
|
|