"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:06:21 -0700, "khobar"
wrote:

"Dr. George O. Bizzigotti" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:25 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:

[regarding Prof. Jones' qualifications as a structural engineer]

[snip]

I don't think we disagree; my point here was simply that a Ph.D. in
the relevant subject is not a requirement to join a scientific
discussion, although it certainly helps. I didn't state this

Agreed.

[snip]

My observation is that it is mostly Jones' fellow travelers making
the ex cathedra argument; if Jones himself is doing so he's certainly
being more subtle than TRUTH.

I guess I'd have to look deeper in Prof. Jones "work" on the subject, though
I'm content to go with your evaluation.


[snip]

I have stated before that Jones' arguments should be evaluated on
their merits. His credentials do not entitle those arguments to any
special deference, but neither do they disqualify those arguments
because his discipline is less relevant to the issue than some other
disciplines.

In my opinion, his credentials most certainly do disqualify those
arguments
if all he offers as qualification are his credentials and nothing more.

Here again, I think we agree. You are evaluating Jones argument and
finding it lacking, and so you reject his hypothesis. That he has a
Ph.D. in physics is irrelevant, because you would make the same
evaluation if the argument were advanced by someone else with no Ph.D.
in physics. I would presume that if Jones had an airtight argument for
his hypothesis you would accept it because it was a better argument,
not because of his Ph.D. of his field. That's what I meant by my
assertion; evaluate the argument, not the credentials.

Yes indeed, but one question remains: why would someone with as much
education and capability as Prof. Jones propose such a hypothesis? With his
background it makes no sense that he would fail to do even the most basic
checks that would reveal just how "out there" his hypothesis is. Could it be
some wild experiment he's conducting to see just who and how many would fall
into line with his hypothesis, or does he truly believe he's right?


I would add as a side note that credentials can be a useful
consideration in how much caution is appropriate before making a
counterargument. If I were to argue with Jones about physics, which is
his field but not mine, I would make very certain that I studied up on
the physics before I criticized Jones. In the area of the WTC
collapse, neither Jones nor I are structural engineers, and it's
apparent even to a non-engineer that Jones has an overly simplified
view of structures, so I don't feel much need to study up on
structural engineering to point that out.

All good points, George. Thanks for the additional comments.

Paul Nixon