![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:25 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote: In article , on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:13:33 GMT, TRUTH attempted to say ..... What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a physicist with a PhD. That is nice that he has a PHD in physics. That was not my point since he is neither an engineer nor materials scientist. Two separate and only marginally related fields. Although I have agreed in several posts of my own with Tank Fixer and other posters who have objected to Truth's argument that because Jones holds a Ph. D. in physics his hypothesis cannot be questioned, I did want to address the question below, which is similar to those I've seen from other posters. Since he has this PHD in physics is he qualified to say discuss oceanography ? My answer would have to be yes. At best, a Ph.D. is a degree that teaches you how to do scholarly research. There are many Ph.D.'s who have made important contributions in fields outside the one in which they were initially educated. As an example using the two fields about which Tank Fixer asked, D. James Baker holds a Ph. D. in experimental physics and was Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during the Clinton Administration. For my money, the real issue is a bit more nuanced. A Ph.D. in one field also gives one an intimate knowledge of the questions one should ask in that field and the tools available to seek the answers. The real risk for Ph.D.'s as they go out of their initial disciplines is that they will miss key questions or be ignorant of key tools. Some Ph.D.'s exercise an appropriate degree of caution as they venture outside their fields, others don't. A major beef that structural engineers have with Jones is his reliance on a single equation for movement due to gravitational acceleration in a vacuum, apparently ignoring tools that the engineers have developed to analyze the complexities of failure in a large structure. Much of Jones' argument boils down to "it fell too fast" without any consideration of "how fast would it be expected to fall?" 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. Regards, George ************************************************** ******************** Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115 Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558 3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail: Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519 ************************************************** ******************** *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com *** |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 07:58 PM |
| American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 11:46 PM |
| Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 10:45 PM |
| ~ 5-MINUTE VIDEO OF BUSH THE MORNING OF 9/11 ~ | B2431 | Military Aviation | 0 | March 27th 04 05:46 AM |