|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 28, 2009 21:47:57 GMT -4
Yes, all animosity aside, I don't wish ill on anyone personally. I took six months off to be with my father just before he died. I didn't suffer any accusations of lack of sincerity.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 23, 2009 16:52:12 GMT -4
And some think a rocket is held up by its exhaust plume, like it's sitting on a pillar. This is a particularly insidious misconception, for it entraps even highly-qualified engineers. Even Roger McCarthy, one of the finest engineers in the United States, got his explanation wrong on a television program. Rocket stability (non-aerodynamic) is rather counterintuitive. Common sense is wrong on that point.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 17, 2009 14:12:21 GMT -4
If I said that there was a possibility I was wrong, frankly, it would be because I think it's reasonable to expect that I could be. I'll agree to it if it's relevant, but it's seldom relevant. The importance to me of the Fair-Witness distinction is the crucial difference between deduction and observation. For most practical concerns it's not relevant. Common-sense deduction works in most cases. If you see that the front of the house is white and then you walk around to the back, you can safely believe that the front of the house hasn't changed colors in the few seconds since it passed out of sight. You have no reason to expect such a change should occur, and probably no idea of a means by which it could occur ordinarily. But in certain engineering contexts that sort of deduction isn't rigorous enough. It's not sufficient (especially in life-safe circumstances) to say that things must be okay because you can't imagine a way in which they could not be. You can't say that a part must be working because you don't know of any way it could fail. It happens often enough that things fail for reasons that weren't imaginable. In that case you must not deduce that it's working; you must observe whether it is, before you commit to risk. That's one of those situations when common-sense thinking that works in ordinary life spills over inappropriately into places where it doesn't belong. A Fair Witness only observes and never deduces, even when it would be reasonable to do so. Hence she maintains the qualitative difference between deduction and observation. I tend to lead by aphorism, and the one that fits is "Don't deduce something you can look up, and don't look up something you can measure."
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 16, 2009 16:49:29 GMT -4
Not everyone groks Heinlein.
He agrees that they must be in the right places at the right times, and the plot credibly provides that. Fair Witnesses function as notaries public for important events where an ubiased and complete record is anticipated. They don't simply appear where needed for happenstance events.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 16, 2009 11:44:58 GMT -4
If she had a picture of the other two sides of the house, affidavits from the people who painted it, leftover paint cans, used brushes, and on and on, would she still be justified in claiming to be unsure? In the context of the literary reference, no. The scene in question from Stranger in a Strange Land describes a so-called Fair Witness. In Heinlein's fictional society, a Fair Witness is a person with eidetic memory who has been conditioned and trained not to draw any conclusions, make any assumptions, or extrapolate from observation. A Fair Witness would not consider the photographs to be evidence of the color of the unseen walls. She would consider them only to be evidence of themselves -- i.e., that they are photographs and, at the time she observed them, depicted what appears to be a house. Affidavits, no matter how rigorously sworn to, are by nature hearsay if someone else relies on them as a basis for his belief. A Fair Witness would note that an affidavit made a certain claim, but would not go so far as to express a belief in the claim under color of her profession. A Fair Witness presented with brushes and paint cans would describe them carefully and accurately, but any connection between them and the painting of the house (either the seen or unseen sign) would be speculative and therefore forbidden. In fact, even if a Fair Witness had witnessed the far side of the house being painted earlier, she still would not render an observation on its present color; she cannot preclude its having been repainted in the meantime. She would say, "It was white when I saw it yesterday." I believe Heinlein means to underscore the necessity with which each of us assumes and extrapolates in order to get through life. Fair Witnesses are respected members of the community, but in his examples they read as comically literal. Moon hoax conspiracists suggest that anyone who cannot, in Fair Witness fashion, give literal eyewitness testimony to the Moon landings cannot hold their authenticity as a defensible belief. However they apply this unilaterally; if such a requirement holds for all propositions and not just the "official" story, then no one who did not witness the hoax being perpetrated can defensibly believe it. As for O'Leary and Clavius, my responsibility is to my source, not to Jarrah White or any other third party. O'Leary does not believe the Clavius page misrepresents his view, and has given me permission to identify that as his final word on the subject of the Moon hoax theory. When and if Brian O'Leary sees fit to inform me that I have not accurately represented him, then I will revise my article. Until then, what some other person thinks about it is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 16, 2009 2:07:23 GMT -4
How did you get sun burnt last time you were here in England? That is not possible for someone from Utah, surely? Indeed it is. And don't call me Shirley.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 14, 2009 14:24:09 GMT -4
Astronauts, like engineers, steep themselves in failure. That is, 90 percent of any flight plan consists of the contingency procedures to be executed should something go wrong. Engineers look at designs and think, "What happens if this thingy breaks?" Consequently much of the astronauts' training is involved in presenting them with various failures and mishaps, then seeing how they (both astronauts and systems) react. When you get to the field, you generally are presented with failures and mishaps that you didn't train for. You can never train for everything. The common reaction to those unexpected failures is amusement; but it masks frustration. You kinda wish that something would go wrong that you had planned for!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 14, 2009 14:09:02 GMT -4
Thanks, Wade. I know you never heard from Jarrah -- he had no intention of contacting you. When he was informed that a third-party witness existed to the contact between myself and Brian O'Leary, he simply wrote you off as yet another "lying" Apollo defender and therefore someone to whom he was not required to pay any attention.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 14, 2009 0:48:30 GMT -4
Thank you, Wade. You may be aware that I encouraged Jarrah to contact you himself to verify the contact that I had with Dr. O'Leary. Unfortunately Jarrah seems to have neglected to do it. I'm glad you had the forthrightness to set the record straight yourself. While it's unlikely that Jarrah will let up on his ill-informed and mean-spirited personal attacks, it is comforting to know that the truth is out there. I wish both you and Brian well.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 2, 2009 12:42:16 GMT -4
My mother's basement is nicer than my house.
The point is that we should naturally treat the argument when there is an argument; when it is putatively based on fact or deduction and when it is reasonably verifiable. Those arguments are subject to an evaluation of merit whether they come from the head of a major corporation or whether they come from someone living in his basement. Basement-dwelling as a rebuttal is ad hominem. Even basement-dwellers can exercise correct logic.
The problem comes when the strength of someone's argument depends legitimately in part upon the perception of his skill or station. If the argument requires interpreting complex scientific or engineering data, then it really does matter whether the proponent is a qualified scientist or a layman.
When evaluating a statement such as, "Investigative reporter Bart Sibrel has studied the Moon landings for years and has concluded they were most likely faked," the strength of that claim rests partly on whether Sibrel really is an investigative reporter. We presume that someone styled as such has the capacity to sift through and evaluate facts, the foresight to consult experts, and the conscience to vet his findings with his peers.
The key to arguing effectively in those cases is to avoid examining someone's station if better arguments exist.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 26, 2009 20:46:26 GMT -4
Shame he won't answer Jay at the IMBd so quickly. Again, another example of the HBs having it their own way.He seems to think he has, or at least that was his story the last time. He declared victory when I answered his questions with questions of my own, whose answers would have been very easy to come by for someone who had the knowledge Jarrah claims. I didn't spoon-feed him answers to which he could have then applied his customary FUD and misdirection without really addressing. And no, he still hasn't answered my questions. Nor are my questions the only ones on the table there. It's even more sad when Jarrah is the one who wanted that debate so badly, and even chose the place. Now he runs back to YouTube, or tries desperately to change the subject away from questions he can't answer.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 25, 2009 11:07:13 GMT -4
"correct quotation"
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 19, 2009 12:11:42 GMT -4
It seems to me that he came here, more than anything, to ask questions and to learn. So, what is wrong with that?Absolutely nothing. In fact, he can come here to debate vigorously if he wanted, and that would still be okay. Should we teach our kids not to ask questions to their teachers?Let me give you the teacher's perspective. I used to teach college: engineering and computer science. In every class there's almost always a troublemaker. He may be there to learn, but his way of going about it doesn't fit the norm. The troublemaker student is the one who always tries to engage the professor in a debate, or questions every statement that's part of the lesson. And predictably, often the questions have little basis in fact or reason; the troublemaker just wants to be the center of attention, to portray himself as clever by tripping up the professor, or has an impulsively contrary personality. Needless to say that doesn't work in a classroom. We're not in a classroom here, so we can afford to be more tolerant. We don't have 15 other students who paid for an education too and have to sit patiently while one guy monopolizes class time. That's why this has gone on for 40 pages. But by teaching you quickly learn the difference between questions intended to elicit information and create understanding, and questions intended to carry out a socratic debate. I believe the latter is what is happening here.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 18, 2009 17:33:03 GMT -4
I would believe only on the basis of physical evidence delivered by a third party. Name an acceptable third party and describe your efforts to date in engaging that party and obtaining what you seek.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 18, 2009 17:31:35 GMT -4
I did not suggest fakery in this case but tried to think of an alternative for the perfect framing in the presence of at least 3 sec delay.Alternatives that included such absurdities as a third party on the Moon. You question the status quo on grounds that a reasonable person ought to recognize as flimsy and presumptive. You insist on the notion of "perfect" framing in order to inflate the impression that what was seen on the screen is some extraordinary feat. You offer such blatant assumptions as, This was a demonstration of little technological significance intended for the ordinary TV viewers so it was important to conduct it with attention to details. Even then you can't remain faithful to your own premises, because if that were a constraint (and I don't agree that it is), then Ed Fendell is still the best man for that job, not someone in the field working buttons blindly. Your "alternatives" are so pitifully formulated and supported that we have no choice but to suppose that you're deliberately trying to erode the status quo by any means possible, not necessarily to propose some coherent alternative, but merely to justify your abstract skepticism. Neither is frankly acceptable. If you're going to argue that there's something wrong with the video, then you simply must justify the basis for your objection. You can't just drop assumptions like the ones I've listed and expect them not to be challenged. I agree with my colleagues: in nearly 40 pages you've done nothing but stir up mud according to the most flimsy premises imaginable, then cower in a corner and lick your wounds when the predictable responses arises. Put up or shut up.
|
|