|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 17, 2010 23:06:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 18, 2010 0:03:15 GMT -4
I thought maybe this Fetzer fellow might be some sort of intellectual HB or something...Indeed from what I've seen and from what I remember during the time I attempted to engage him directly, he seems to pride himself on a certain degree of intellectual sophistication. His academic field of expertise is the philosophical basis of science and knowledge. I can see how that would compel such a professor to try to place all things under his feet. And he refused to continue our debate on the grounds that I was insufficiently educated. His reliance on the hoax films instead of using his own words are also a letdown.Indeed; his m.o., then as now, is to trot out the long-debunked claims of others and then to sign his PhD to it. Not really a valid application of anyone's degree.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 18, 2010 0:35:27 GMT -4
Can PhD's be revoked?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 18, 2010 2:48:10 GMT -4
If the proponent in the debate had some hand in making the video, and if the evidence is best suited to a video format, then I see no problem I don't think it's especially necessary that you personally produced the video in question as long as it graphically illustrates the point you're trying to make, you do in fact understand the point(s) it makes, and you're willing to explain and back it up in your own words. E.g., I'd also like to use those trajectory animations; even though I didn't make them I can certainly explain what they show.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 18, 2010 2:50:14 GMT -4
And he refused to continue our debate on the grounds that I was insufficiently educated. What was that the late Ralph Rene used to say about heavily credentialed gasbags?
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Aug 18, 2010 4:39:19 GMT -4
Regarding Fetzer's latest post in that thread - by what series of mental contortions can he be so insistent on the importance of rigorously sourcing all claims, and then in the same breath make the bald assertion that "von Braun collected genuine moon rocks"?
Then he uses the standard HB technique of asserting fraud in any circumstances where he doesn't understand or can't refute evidence, such as his unsupported claim that forging zap pits would be a "piece of cake"
Kudos to Evan for trying, but I don't see it going anywhere but down.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 18, 2010 16:12:33 GMT -4
I bet his former associates at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, are glad he is an emeritus professor.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 18, 2010 19:39:48 GMT -4
Honorary degrees can be revoked for any reason the granting institution feels is relevant. Revocation of an academic degree is practically unheard of because the degree is conferred based solely upon work done up to that point, not for the candidate's future behavior. If it is discovered that the original work for which the PhD was conferred is significantly fraudulent (e.g., plagiarized, falsified) , then the granting institution may invalidate it. But if a candidate properly completed his work, and then subsequently becomes a fool, it does not warrant revoking the degree.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 18, 2010 19:55:59 GMT -4
What was that the late Ralph Rene used to say about heavily credentialed gasbags? Well, René's feelings on academia are probably colored by his own lack of success there. Many years ago he was an invited guest on an NPR program discussing the Moon hoax. He went off on a tirade about how the Powers That Be had conspired to prevent him from obtaining a degree, and became so vitriolic that NPR cut him off and did the rest of the program without him. I would expect any opinion he offered about academia to be heavily biased by his own regrets. The best expertise comes, in my experience, comes from a proper mix of academic and practical qualifications. Some pursuits are purely academic -- there is very little use for philosophy, for example, outside the academic world. None of the companies I've worked for had an official corporate poet either. That doesn't mean that philosophy and poetry are unworthy pursuits. It means, on the contrary, that one whose qualifications in those fields are solidly academic is probably going to be as qualified as anyone can get. Contrast that with professional pursuits such as engineering where the real expertise is acquired in the real world by attempting to build things. One whose experience in that field is confined to reading articles and studying drawings will simply not have the depth of expertise to question those whose experience is both academic and practical. We cannot dismiss the value of academic engineering, and in fact we rely upon it heavily. But not all questions are academic. Fetzer's doctorate is in the philosophy of science. I'm betting he hopes readers will be confused and think Fetzer is a scientist. The practice of science and the study of science itself are different enough that Fetzer ends up being out of his element on most of the questions he wants to discuss here. His expertise is in a dead-end, academic-only area that simply doesn't give him a breadth of real-world knowledge from which to meaningfully question the achievements of others.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 18, 2010 22:11:04 GMT -4
I had heard of Fetzer as a 9/11 whackjob, but this is extra special:
As a practicing space engineer, let me offer the following highly technical assessment: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 18, 2010 22:30:45 GMT -4
Oh yes - that movie where a government hoax conspiracy is blown almost immediately.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 18, 2010 23:01:42 GMT -4
By the world's most incompetent reporter, too!
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Aug 18, 2010 23:16:10 GMT -4
Another classic example of Jack's silly perspective.
But wasn't it Jack who in multiple instances outright refused to discuss his own material? Pot, meet kettle.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 19, 2010 6:08:22 GMT -4
By the world's most incompetent reporter, too! Oh, I don't know. I could point to a few real life journos that make Elliot Gould's character look like a potential Pulitzer prize winner.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 19, 2010 6:40:39 GMT -4
Fetzer's doctorate is in the philosophy of science. I'm betting he hopes readers will be confused and think Fetzer is a scientist. I do know the difference, but I would still like to think that Fetzer's training would have given him enough of an understanding of what science is all about to realize just how utterly unscientific his positions are on such things as 9/11 and Apollo. Guess not.
|
|