On May 22, 10:16*am, gatt wrote:
If this were rec.surgery.brain and some philosophy student was arguing
with brain surgeons all day, every day, and then admonishing them for
their answers, I wouldn't for a second expect the surgeons not to remind
the student they're they're doctors and that he's not qualified to
contradict literally ALL of them. * (Not to mention ignoring their
authoritative references and dodging any challenge to cite sources for
him own information.)

But I never said anybody "wasn't allowed" to disagree with me simply
because of my credentials.

Hmm..point of view is valid except for one important fact:

Many of the pilots in this group have not spoken with the same
objectivity that one would expect from an expert who expects his
opinion to supersede that of a novice.

I am reading a parallel thread in which someone claims that the theory
of lift often exists incorrectly in the minds of those who think they
understand it.

When I, as a novice, made this same statement a few months ago when I
joined the group, most of the responding pilots said, "It is
understood. You are the one who does not understand." When I showed
examples of actual experts (university professors in aero/astro, books
by pilots with 20,000+ hours, respected educators in aviation, the
NASA link given by Jim Logajan, etc.", the pilots still said, "You are
still wrong."

Note that it was not a few obstinate pilots making these claims, but
most of them.

When pilots take this position, refuting people whom one would imagine
has even greater understanding of the subject, it becomes difficult to
lend credibility simply because they have a pilot's license.

-Le Chaud Lapin-