|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 21, 2010 13:16:23 GMT -4
If being an arrogant jerk were all it took to be mentally ill, a lot more people would count as mentally ill. Exactly my point. We seem to be in agreement that Jack White is somehow, "Special." :-P
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 29, 2010 4:18:20 GMT -4
It looks like they are almost ready to start the "debate"!
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Aug 29, 2010 8:58:34 GMT -4
It looks like they are almost ready to start the "debate"! Where is this?
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 29, 2010 15:58:32 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 29, 2010 18:22:13 GMT -4
Reading that last page I'm not holding up much hope that this is going to work, Fetzer seems more interested in point scoring than putting up any actual evidence for analysis
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Aug 30, 2010 9:03:10 GMT -4
blackstarNo surprise from Mr Fetzer then... Seriously, even if I knew nothing about the issue, I couldn't help wondering why JF can't just explain his position, instead of whining around. @evan I think you are reading here so if Jim requires "I therefore request that Evan be required to acknowledge the source of his posts, so that I and others can verify them." he himself should be held to the same standard, have him back up his claims, he should not have you jump through any "We Hoaxers say so"-Hoops. Also have him commit himself to a point. It is just stupid for him to start a topic like "von Braun was a Nazi" in educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16393&view=findpost&p=203666 and then to ignore it because he isn't ready to defend it. Either he wants to make a point or not.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Aug 30, 2010 11:09:34 GMT -4
Newsticker #1: Jack can't find his great photos and it's Evan's fault.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 30, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -4
...instead of whining around.Same impression here: My first thought was, "Wow, what a whiner!" Also have him commit himself to a point. It is just stupid for him to start a topic... and then to ignore it because he isn't ready to defend it. Either he wants to make a point or not. Indeed. He's playing the Musical Scope game, which is common in pseudoscientific argumentation. When someone dismisses a conspiracy theory as absurd, the proponent says you have to look at the evidence in detail. When we propose to look at evidence in detail, he says we're missing the big picture. Whatever scope you address is the "wrong" scope for his desired debate. He'll probably play that game as long as you let him. Now you have to grant him some quarter. It's considered longstanding practice in argumentation to "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, then tell 'em what you've told 'em." We do this in court: there's an opening statement, the presentation and examination of evidence, then a closing summary. If Fetzer wants to have an opening statement identifying the points he'll cover, that's his prerogative. However, if he raises a claim in debate e.g. for rebuttal purposes, then fails to defend it, it's a different story. White generally posts each "study" as a self-contained unit. It can be refuted as a self-contained unit. If Fetzer wants to see a pattern in them, so be it. The pattern I see is, "Jack White has no clue how the authenticity of photographs is determined in the real world." But that's just my cynicism showing. Pattern or not, each photo or set of photos in the study is either correctly evaluated or it is not. Fetzer seems to want to avoid a detailed examination of the evidence in hopes of making a handwaving case at a more abstract level. About ten years ago I looked at White's alleged evidence for having reused backdrops from one mission to another. He was trying to make a "pattern-of-evidence" claim. At the high level his claim seemed persuasive. Unfortunately when the individual photos were examined, we found the same old Jack White tricks: he'd selectively cropped out parts that didn't fit his theory, he'd failed to normalize the scale of photographs, and he'd arranged and composed evidence to create the illusion of inconsistency. The individual bits of evidence either conform to the pattern or they do not. And that begins with determining whether they are valid evidence or not. Fetzer's ploy has no substance.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 19:47:23 GMT -4
Not a member over there just an observer.
Fetzer is so far off the deep end, the Marianis trench looks like a puddle.
I am amazed that a PhD would behave so, spamming the same dang post again and again.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 30, 2010 20:13:41 GMT -4
I think I'll check out that thread again in a couple of years when something has actually been debated...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 31, 2010 0:10:12 GMT -4
I am amazed that a PhD would behave so, spamming the same dang post again and again. No part of the PhD process tests the candidate's ability to avoid making an [expletive] out of himself. I've spent enough time in academia not to be intimidated by the degree alone. Further, my father served as the dean to two colleges in his career; our dinner-table conversation often discussed what an [expletive] some faculty members could be. They are just as capable as anyone else of being self-absorbed, petty, and downright puerile. I personally know several PhDs who are quite pompous [expletives] and only two or three who I would consider brilliant. One of those ironically also falls into the pompous [expletive] category; I won't give his name, but he works at LLNL. The majority within my acquaintance are unremarkable practitioners. The PhD degree tests only the candidate's ability once to carry out significant original research supervised by senior researchers. It does not guarantee further erudition or respectability.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 31, 2010 14:02:33 GMT -4
An extreme example of a PhD who went off the deep end would be Dr. Amy Bishop.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Sept 1, 2010 4:34:25 GMT -4
An extreme example of a PhD who went off the deep end would be Dr. Amy Bishop. One swift google later. Wow, thats pretty far off the deep end. I don't recall that getting much media coverage over here.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Sept 1, 2010 6:49:10 GMT -4
I have to ask, Jay ... should we assume the same [expletive] every time, or should we be thinking a little wider than that?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 1, 2010 10:20:00 GMT -4
No, I was pretty much thinking of the same [expletive] every time.
|
|